TITLE: B-310372.4, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., May 2, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310372.4
DATE: May 2, 2008
*********************************************
B-310372.4, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., May 2, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.

   File: B-310372.4

   Date: May 2, 2008

   David R. Hazelton, Esq., Roger S. Goldman, Esq., Kyle Jefcoat, Esq.,
   Benjamin Wei, Esq., and Andrew Stein, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, for the
   protester.
   Brent G. Curtis, Esq., and Kenneth C. Kitzmiller, Esq., Department of the
   Air Force, for the agency.

   Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Kara M.
   Sacilotto, Esq., William J. Grimaldi, Esq., and Nicole P. Wishart, Esq.,
   Wiley Rein, LLP, for The Beoing Company, an intervenor.
   Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that the agency's actual requirements have materially changed from
   those stated in a solicitation under which a competition was recently
   conducted is dismissed where agency representative responsible for
   translating operational requirements into contractual requirements has
   submitted declaration stating that the agency has not yet made any
   determination regarding potential changes to the contract requirements.

   DECISION

   Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.,[1] protests the terms of solicitation No.
   FA8105-05-R-0014, under which a contract was awarded to Boeing Aerospace
   Operations to perform programmed depot maintenance (PDM) for KC-135
   aircraft. Pemco asserts that recent developments indicate that the
   Department of the Air Force's actual requirements regarding PDM for KC-135
   aircraft are materially different than the terms of the solicitation under
   which the offerors recently competed, and maintains that the solicitation
   should be revised, and the competition reopened, to permit offerors to
   submit proposals for what Pemco asserts are the Air Force's actual
   requirements.

   We dismiss the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   On February 29, 2008, the agency selected Boeing for award of a contract
   to perform PDM on KC-135 aircraft.[2] On March 11, Pemco filed a protest
   challenging that source selection decision; the merits of the March 11
   protest are currently being considered by this Office, and we will
   subsequently issue a decision regarding that matter.

   On March 21, Pemco filed this supplement to its March 11 protest,
   maintaining that, during program management review meetings (PMRs)
   conducted by the Air Force on March 11-12,[3] the Air Force "announced two
   significant, material changes to the KC-135 PDM program -- a change in the
   expected quantity of aircraft undergoing contractor PDM and a potential
   change in the PDM cycle." [4] Pemco Protest, Mar. 21, 2008, at 4.

   More specifically, with regard to the quantity of aircraft to be serviced
   under the contract, Pemco notes that the solicitation advised offerors
   that the agency's "best estimated quantity" (BEQ) of aircraft to be
   serviced under the contract was 24 per year. Nonetheless, Pemco asserts
   that, at the recent PMRs, the Air Force "announced . . . an increase in
   the expected number of aircraft undergoing contractor PDM each year from
   24 to 36."[5] Protest at 4. With regard to Pemco's protest alleging a
   "potential change in the PDM cycle," Pemco asserts that, at the PMRs, the
   Air Force "announced a pilot program to change the PDM schedule of the
   KC-135 aircraft from the current five year maintenance schedule to a new
   four/eight year schedule." Id. at 5.

   In response to Pemco's March 21 protest, the Air Force submitted a
   declaration from Col. James J. Nally, Commander, 827^th Aircraft
   Sustainment Group, Tinker Air Force Base, whose responsibilities include
   "translating operational requirements [for the KC-135 fleet] into
   contractual requirements." Declaration of Col. Nally, Mar. 31, 2008, para.
   1. With regard to the quantity of aircraft to be serviced, the declaration
   states:

     Pemco's assertion that the Air Force's PMR presentation announced a
     change in the number of aircraft expected to undergo contract PDM is
     incorrect. The number of PDM aircraft planned for both organic and
     contract PDM remains unchanged. The total KC-135 PDM aircraft per year
     (organic and contract) is estimated at 72-78. The Best Estimated
     Quantity for the contractor remains at 24 aircraft per year as stated in
     the solicitation.

   Id. para. 3.

   With regard to Pemco's allegation of a "potential change in the PDM
   cycle," the declaration states:

     The Air Force has not changed from the current five-year PDM cycle. The
     four/eight-year maintenance concept is an on-going study and will be
     evaluated using a structured systems engineering approach to determine
     if this model is feasible. This evaluation will focus on a sample of 13
     prototype aircraft to be inducted into the Tinker organic maintenance
     line beginning in FY09. This prototype effort is necessary to support
     the Air Force decision to remain with the current five-year PDM cycle or
     switch to an alternative maintenance concept. All the data necessary to
     make this decision will not be available until FY14. Until the study and
     prototyping is complete and the data fully evaluated, the requirement
     for contract PDM to support a five year cycle will not change.

   Id. para. 4.

   As a general rule, in considering a protest based on the protester's view
   of what a procuring agency's actual requirements are, or should be, this
   Office will accept an agency's representations regarding its actual
   requirements and its statements of how it intends to fill them. See, e.g.,
   Serv-Air, Inc., B-258243.4, Mar. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 125 at 3-4.
   Specifically, we have applied this policy in situations where an agency is
   considering a particular course of action, but has not yet reached a
   conclusion regarding how it will proceed. ITT Elect. Sys., Radar
   Sys.-Gilfillian, B-299150 et al., Feb. 2, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 19 at 2-3.
   Until the agency has made a decision regarding a potential change in
   contract requirements, a protest based on the protester's anticipation of
   the agency's subsequent course of action is speculative and premature.
   Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., B-298626, Nov. 21, 2006, 2006 CPD
   para. 177 at 7-8.

   Here, as discussed above, the agency has unambiguously stated that Pemco's
   factual allegations regarding changes to the contract requirements are not
   accurate, and that, to the extent the agency has considered, or is
   considering, the type of changes on which Pemco's protest is based, no
   decision has been reached. On this record, Pemco's protest is
   premature.[6]

   The protest is dismissed.[7]

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] We understand that Pemco is now doing business as Alabama Aircraft
   Industries, Inc. Since the protester refers to itself as Pemco, our
   decision does the same.

   [2] As the parties are aware, the agency initially awarded the contract to
   Boeing on September 10, 2007; thereafter, Pemco filed a protest
   challenging that action. On December 27, 2007, this Office sustained
   Pemco's protest, recommending that the agency perform cost realism and
   risk assessments regarding particular aspects of Boeing's proposal. The
   agency's February 29, 2008 source selection decision was made after
   reviewing our December 27 decision and recommendations.

   [3] The agency states that PMRs are conducted periodically to assess the
   performance of maintenance activities on the KC-135 aircraft, and to
   discuss relevant future plans.

   [4] PDM on KC-135 aircraft is currently performed both by the Air Force
   itself at Tinker Air Force base (frequently referred to as "organic" PDM)
   and by an outside contractor or contractors (until recently, the outside
   contractor work was divided between Boeing and Pemco). PDM is currently
   performed on a 5-year cycle.

   [5] Neither Pemco's protest, nor its subsequent response to the agency's
   motion to dismiss, identifies who allegedly made the announcement or,
   other than generally referencing the PMRs, when and under what
   circumstances the announcement was made.

   [6] In the event the agency subsequently pursues a course of action
   consistent with Pemco's factual allegations, Pemco may re-submit its
   protest for this Office's consideration. Our statement in this regard
   should not be construed as an advance ruling regarding any relevant issue
   presented by such subsequently-filed protest.

   [7] In its protest submissions, Pemco also asserts that Boeing had
   "advance knowledge" of what Pemco asserts are the agency's changed
   requirements. Since, as discussed above, we have dismissed the protest on
   the basis of the Air Force's representations that its requirements have
   not changed, we will not further consider Pemco's protest that Boeing had
   knowledge of the alleged changes.