SEAIR Transport Services, Inc.

B-274436 Dec 12, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alleging that credit should have been given under one evaluation criterion rather than another. Is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation. Protest against agency's performance risk assessment of awardee's proposal is denied where the agency's evaluation and conclusions reached were reasonable and supported by the record. SEAIR contends that the Air Force's evaluation of competing proposals and resulting award decision were flawed in a number of ways. The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside. The technical areas were to be of primary importance and would be considered equal in value. Each of the technical areas was to be rated in three different ways: by a color rating. View Decision Matter of: SEAIR Transport Services, Inc. File: B-274436 Date: December 12, 1996 Protest based on disagreement with agency's evaluation of certain features in the protester's proposal, alleging that credit should have been given under one evaluation criterion rather than another, 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. Protest against agency's performance risk assessment of awardee's proposal is denied where the agency's evaluation and conclusions reached were reasonable and supported by the record. Attorneys DECISION SEAIR Transport Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Eagle Aviation Services & Technology, Inc. ("EAST") under request for proposals (RFP) No. F34650-96-R-0059 for the performance of fuels operations services at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. SEAIR contends that the Air Force's evaluation of competing proposals and resulting award decision were flawed in a number of ways. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside, and contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a 1-year base period, plus 4 option years. The solicitation provided that the source selection would be conducted in accordance with the Streamlined Source Selection Procedures of Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Appendix BB. The RFP listed the following specific criteria against which proposals would be evaluated: management, production, quality, and cost. The technical areas were to be of primary importance and would be considered equal in value, with cost/price having substantial but secondary importance. The RFP also provided the following assessment criteria against which the technical areas would be evaluated: understanding/compliance with the requirements and soundness of approach. Each of the technical areas was to be rated in three different ways: by a color rating, used to reflect how well the proposal meets the evaluation standards and RFP requirements; by a proposal risk factor, used to assess any risks associated with the offeror's proposed approach; and by a performance risk factor, used to reflect any risks associated with the offeror's present and past work record. Cost was to be evaluated for completeness, realism and reasonableness, and would be evaluated against the government's 'most probable cost' estimate. Award was to be made to the offeror presenting the best value to the government. Eleven firms submitted timely initial offers. After these were evaluated, the agency determined that only seven offers, including SEAIR's and EAST's, should remain in the competitive range. The competitive range offerors were then permitted to present oral proposals, as the RFP had described. Following the oral presentations, members of the Air Force technical evaluation team asked any questions required for clarification. Discussions were then conducted with each offeror by telephone, followed by the submission of best and final offers (BAFOs). The BAFOs that were submitted by EAST and SEAIR were rated as superior to the other remaining offerors. The two firms received identical technical ratings, with each firm's proposal rated blue ("exceptional") under the management and production factors and green ("acceptable") under the quality factor, with low risk ratings. EAST's proposed price of $11,547,388 was approximately $450,000 lower than SEAIR's price. The source selection authority determined that EAST's offer represented the best value to the government, and EAST was selected for award. SEAIR requested and received a debriefing, and this protest followed. SEAIR protests that the Air Force failed to award proper evaluation credit for certain aspects of SEAIR's proposal. The protester asserts that its proposal should have received a "blue" rating for quality, instead of "green," because it included additional features that improved the quality of its level of performance.