Doss Aviation, Inc.; Dominion Aviation, Inc.

Doss Aviation, Inc.; Dominion Aviation, Inc. BNUMBER: B-275419; B-275419.2; B-275419.3 DATE: February 20, 1997 TITLE: Doss Aviation, Inc.; Dominion Aviation, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Doss Aviation, Inc.; Dominion Aviation, Inc. File: B-275419; B-275419.2; B-275419.3 Date:February 20, 1997 Thomas G. Jeter, Esq., and Mark J. Meagher, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Doss Aviation, Inc.; John R. Thompson, for Dominion Aviation, Inc., the protesters. Col. Nicholas P. Retson, and Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Department of the Army, for the agency. Harvey G. Sherzer, Esq., William A. Roberts, Esq., Lee P. Curtis, Esq., and Terry M. Petrie, Esq., Howrey & Simon, for UNC Aviation Services, an intervenor. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency mechanically applied an undisclosed staffing estimate in evaluating proposals is denied where the solicitation put offerors on notice that staffing was a critical area of the evaluation, offerors were required to describe the number of personnel that would perform the work and show how the agency's stated flight training requirements would be met, offerors were advised during discussions as to whether their proposals included fewer instructor pilots than were considered necessary under the agency estimate, and there is no indication in the record that the agency unreasonably overlooked or rejected specific elements of offerors' proposed staffing approaches which were likely to result in the need for fewer instructor pilots than the agency estimate. 2. Protest that in best value procurement agency improperly awarded additional evaluation credit based on aspects of awardee's proposal that exceeded the solicitation's minimum requirements is denied; where detailed technical proposals are sought and technical evaluation criteria are used to enable the agency to make comparative judgments about the relative merits of competing proposals, offerors are on notice that qualitative distinctions among the technical proposals will be made under the various evaluation factors, and there is no basis to object to the award of extra credit for advantageous elements of a proposal when the additional credit is related to the stated evaluation factors. DECISION Doss Aviation, Inc. and Dominion Aviation, Inc. protest the Department of the Army's award of a contract to UNC Aviation Services, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT01-96-R-0001, for rotary wing (helicopter) flight training services at Fort Rucker. Doss and Dominion primarily challenge the agency's evaluation of technical proposals. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract, for a base year with 4 option years, to furnish academic training classes, flight simulator training, and aircraft flight training for rotary wing aircraft at Fort Rucker. Although the statement of work (SOW) established minimum manning totals for specified key personnel, including flight commanders, offerors were required to calculate and propose the average number of flight instructors required for each fiscal year based on (1) projected student inputs into the training program and class schedules set forth in the solicitation and (2) a requirement to maintain a minimum flight instructor-to-student ratio of one instructor to two students in all flight training courses. Award was to be made based on the proposal offering the "best overall value to the Government" under the following four criteria (listed in descending order of importance): (1) "technical," comprised of three subfactors, the most important of which was number and qualifications of personnel; (2) performance history; (3) cost/price realism; and (4) price. The solicitation stated that price, although listed as the least important evaluation factor, would "become the determinative factor with respect to offerors that are essentially equal in technical acceptability, performance history, and cost/price realism." Nine proposals were received by the closing time on July 8, 1996. Seven proposals--including UNC's, Doss's, and Dominion's--were included in the competitive range. Following discussions with offerors, the Army requested best and final offers (BAFO).