Cessna Aircraft Company

B-261953.5 Feb 05, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation. Allegation that the agency's source selection advisory council (SSAC) improperly changed the source selection evaluation board's (SSEB) rating of protester's proposal for trainer aircraft under the "system safety" evaluation factor from blue (exceptional) to green (acceptable) is denied. Where the record shows that the SSEB's rating was primarily based on the protester's twin-engine design. Contracting agency's life-cycle cost analysis involves the exercise of informed judgment and our Office will not question such an analysis unless it clearly lacks a reasonable basis. View Decision Matter of: Cessna Aircraft Company File: B-261953.5 Date: February 5, 1996 Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, and the record reasonably supports the evaluators' conclusions. Allegation that the agency's source selection advisory council (SSAC) improperly changed the source selection evaluation board's (SSEB) rating of protester's proposal for trainer aircraft under the "system safety" evaluation factor from blue (exceptional) to green (acceptable) is denied, where the record shows that the SSEB's rating was primarily based on the protester's twin-engine design, and, despite a specific request from the SSAC, the SSEB could not convince the SSAC that a twin-engine design resulted in a "safer" aircraft. Contracting agency reasonably evaluated protester's performance risk based upon unfavorable information in "contractor performance assessment reports" and in responses to questionnaires reflecting the protester's recent poor performance on other contracts. Contracting agency's life-cycle cost analysis involves the exercise of informed judgment and our Office will not question such an analysis unless it clearly lacks a reasonable basis. Protester's contention that the agency's cost analysis was flawed is denied where the protester has not shown that the agency's approach was unreasonable. Where solicitation and agency's letter requesting best and final offers (BAFO) clearly required offerors to substantiate any BAFO price reductions, so that the agency could adequately assess and develop most probable life-cycle costs, agency's decision to rely on protester's pre- BAFO pricing was reasonable, where record shows that protester failed to substantiate significant price reductions in its BAFO. Attorneys DECISION The Cessna Aircraft Company protests the proposed award of a contract to the Beech Aircraft Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-94-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS). Cessna contends that the Air Force improperly evaluated technical proposals and that the agency's life-cycle cost evaluation was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The objective of the JPATS procurement is to replace the Air Force's T-37B and the Navy's T-34C aircraft and associated ground-based training systems (GBTS). The primary mission of the JPATS aircraft and its GBTS is to train entry-level Air Force and Navy student pilots in primary flying and to prepare them to transition into advanced training tracks leading to qualification as a military pilot. The JPATS aircraft and GBTS will also provide entry-level officers with a basic understanding of airmanship prior to their designation as Naval Flight Officers or Air Force Navigators, as well as provide support and training for pilot instructors. The RFP characterized the acquisition as a "fly-before-buy" procurement. That is, the RFP stated that as part of the evaluation process, the government would fly each offeror's proposed aircraft to assess its performance and flying qualities. Thus, in addition to written proposals, offerors were required to provide an evaluation aircraft with flying qualities which duplicated those of the proposed production aircraft. The RFP stated that the flight evaluation would assess the capability of each aircraft to train an entry-level student pilot with no prior flying experience to the proficiency level required by the primary pilot training syllabus. Air Force and Navy test pilots and customer pilots would evaluate each aircraft. In addition, the Air Force's Operational Test and Evaluation Center was to perform an early operational assessment of each aircraft.