Dynamic Aviation--Helicopters

B-274122 Nov 01, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bias is not established by inference or supposition. Which was issued as a total small business set-aside. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best value basis. Price and the technical factors were of approximately equal weight. Proposals were received from Timberline. Discussions were conducted. The agency's final evaluation was that Timberline's BAFO was superior to Dynamic's under the past performance factor and under the technical factor's safety. Award was made to Timberline. Has a right to have reviewed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the certificate of competency (COC) procedures. Dynamic also argues that it is entitled to award as the lowest-priced offeror. View Decision Matter of: Dynamic Aviation--Helicopters File: B-274122 Date: November 1, 1996 Where an agency uses traditional responsibility factors, such as experience or past performance, as technical evaluation factors, the comparative evaluation of proposals under such factors does not involve a matter of responsibility subject to the Small Business Administration certificate of competency procedures. In a negotiated, best value procurement, an agency may select a higher technically rated, higher-priced offer for award, where the agency reasonably determines in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria that the technical superiority of the higher-rated proposal outweighs the price advantage of the lower technically rated proposal. Allegations of bias on the part of government officials in the evaluation of proposals must be supported by credible evidence clearly demonstrating a bias against the protester or in favor of the awardee, and that the agency's bias translated into action that unfairly affected the protester's competitive position; bias is not established by inference or supposition. Attorneys DECISION Dynamic Aviation--Helicopters protests the award of a contract to Timberline Helicopters under request for proposal (RFP) No. 8096-09, issued by the Office of Aircraft Services, Department of the Interior, for helicopter services. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was issued as a total small business set-aside, sought fixed-priced proposals for flight services, consisting of one helicopter to be flown, maintained, and fuel serviced by the contractor, for a base year with 4 option years. The RFP provided that, among other things, the contractor would transport personnel and cargo in support of fire suppression; assist in search and rescue operations; and perform wild horse and burro gathering, herding, capturing, and counting. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best value basis, determined pursuant to the following technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance: 1. Past Performance a. Quality of Service b. Timeliness and responsiveness of performance c. Commitment to customer satisfaction d. Quality awards/certifications e. Problems f. Cost Control 2. Technical a. Safety b. Maintenance c. Personnel d. Aircraft e. Certification The RFP did not state the relative weight of technical vis-a-vis price in the evaluation of proposals; thus, price and the technical factors were of approximately equal weight. See Jack Faucett Assocs., B-233224, Feb. 3, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 115. Proposals were received from Timberline--the incumbent contractor--and Dynamic in response to the RFP. Discussions were conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) received. Dynamic proposed a total price of $481,600, and Timberline proposed a total price of $511,250. The agency's final evaluation was that Timberline's BAFO was superior to Dynamic's under the past performance factor and under the technical factor's safety, maintenance, and personnel subfactors. In the contracting officer's judgment, Timberline's proposal represented the best value to the government. Award was made to Timberline, and this protest followed. Dynamic challenges the evaluation of its proposal, asserting that the evaluation of its past performance concerns a matter of its responsibility, which Dynamic, as a small business concern, has a right to have reviewed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the certificate of competency (COC) procedures. Dynamic also argues that it is entitled to award as the lowest-priced offeror. We disagree with Dynamic that the evaluation of its past performance under this RFP was a matter of responsibility subject to COC procedures. An agency may use traditional responsibility factors, such as experience or past performance, as technical evaluation factors, where, as here, a comparative evaluation of those areas is to be made. Advanced Resources Int'l, Inc.--Recon., B-249679.2, Apr. 29, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 348. A comparative evaluation means that competing proposals will be rated on a scale relative to each other as opposed to a pass/fail basis. Id.