• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc., B-406523, June 22, 2012

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • July 11, 2012
  • Bundling or ConsolidationTerms of the Solicitation

Link: GAO Decision

Protestor: Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc.

Agency: Department of the Air Force

Disposition: Protest Denied.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAO Digest:

  1. Consolidation of requirements for contractor logistics support for the C-20 and C-37 aircraft requiring 5 years of fixed-price flying hour rates is reasonable, where the agency determined that consolidation will result in significant cost savings and operational efficiencies.
  2. A solicitation for aircraft logistics support is not unduly restrictive of competition or inconsistent with customary commercial practices, where the record supports the agency’s market research identifying its requirements and mitigating risk to offerors.

General Counsel PC Highlight:

Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc. protested the terms of an RFP for contractor logistics support for the C-20 and C-37 aircraft. The aircraft are militarized versions of commercial business jets manufactured by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. Northrop Grumman is the incumbent contractor providing logistics support for the C-20, while Gulfstream is the incumbent contractor for the C-37 aircraft. The agency issued four RFIs over a four year period, in which it asked potential offerors for their views regarding the consolidation of the logistics support requirements, the length of the contract, the time required to phase in a new contractor, and the type of contract that should be awarded. After determining that consolidation would result in efficiencies in cost, contract management, and field maintenance capabilities, the agency held an industry day, and made several revisions to its draft PWS based on industry input.

The RFP issued provided for a 90-day phase-in period, during which the awardee, the incumbent, and the agency would complete a joint inventory of the contractor operated and maintained base supply system/main operating bases and depot facility, including all parts, support equipment, and furniture. The PWS required an agreement with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to obtain the approved data and technical support needed to maintain the airframes, engines, accessories, and systems at a level that would ensure FAA airworthiness is retained.

Northrop Grumman argued that the RFP is unduly restrictive of competition because it required a “sufficient inventory” of C-37 parts, fixed-price flying hour rates, and a 90-day phase-in period. It argued that the agency should not consolidate the logistics support for the two aircraft because only Gulfstream could reasonably perform the C-37 aircraft logistics support. It further asserted that the pricing and phase-in requirements deviate from customary commercial practices, and claimed that Gulfstream’s position as OEM and incumbent on the C-37 logistics support contract created an impermissible OCI.

The GAO found that the agency reasonably determined that consolidation of the logistics support requirements for the C-20 and C-37 aircraft would result in significant cost savings and operational efficiencies, noting that the agency had considered several different contracting approaches over the course of several years of evaluation. It disagreed that the requirement to maintain “sufficient inventory” of C-37 parts was unduly restrictive, noting that the awardee was not required to have a complete inventory at the end of the phase-in period and that Northrop Grumman had not demonstrated that Gulfstream would not sell it the necessary parts. The GAO also rejected Northrop Grumman’s argument that there was insufficient information to permit offerors to reasonably estimate fixed-price flying hour rates. It noted that all offerors received 34 months of usage data and that Gulfstream gave offerors access to its proprietary CMP database, which provided maintenance data on each aircraft for all maintenance actions, including part removals and installations that were completed since the aircraft were placed in service.

The GAO then concluded that Northrop Grumman had not demonstrated that the agency’s requirement for a 90-day phase-in was unreasonable, agreeing with the agency that the PWS made clear that it was up to the contractor to determine the spares inventory necessary to meet the mission capability requirements and that the agency was not requiring a specific inventory investment. The GAO also held that Northrop Grumman had not demonstrated that the 90-day phase-in period was not consistent with customary commercial practice. It rejected the argument that fixed-price flying hours rates were inconsistent with customary commercial practice, pointing out that FAR Part 12 directs agencies to use fixed-price contracts, or fixed-price with economic price adjustments, for the acquisition of commercial items. Finally, the GAO denied the claim that Gulfstream had an impermissible OCI, noting that Northrop Grumman had not identified any evidence of preferential treatment or other improper action on the part of the agency. It also pointed out that the agency had attempted to mitigate any competitive advantage by obtaining from Gulfstream, and providing to all offerors, 34 months of usage data.

Agencies are permitted to consolidate or bundle requirements where the agency reasonably determines that doing so will result in significant cost savings or efficiencies. While a potential offeror may believe that the consolidation will restrict competition because it will prevent firms that only furnish a portion of the requirement from competing, the potential offeror must challenge whether the agency will in fact be able to achieve the cost savings or efficiencies justifying the bundling. Protests regarding improper bundling or consolidation must be filed prior to the time for the submission of proposals or they will be considered untimely.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair, Inc.

January 4, 2022

In the Matter of: CR/ZWS LLC

November 3, 2017

Qwest Government Services, Inc. dba CenturyLink QGS, B-407835, March 7, 2013

April 3, 2013

Harmonia Holdings, LLC, B-407186.2; B-407186.3, March 5, 2013

March 20, 2013

Comments are closed

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845