J. A. Jones Grupo de Servicios, SA, B-283234, October 25, 1999

B-283234 Oct 25, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is not evidence of bias where apparent purpose of message was to enhance competition under the procurement. The message would have been inapplicable to other potential offerors. Who were not the incumbent. 2. There is no basis for sustaining protest allegation that evaluation was unreasonable because incumbent received "outstanding" ratings. The protester asserts that the agency was biased in favor of Interjet. That the evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation criteria and that the selection of Interjet was unjustified. It directed offerors to "describe your company's past performance on directly related or similar Government or commercial contracts and subcontracts that are similar in scope. View Decision Matter of: J. A. Jones Grupo de Servicios, SA File: B-283234 Date: October 25, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION J.A. Jones Grupo de Servicios, SA, protests the award of a contract to InterjetServe under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68171-99-R-0024, issued by the Naval Regional Contracting Center in Naples, Italy, for air terminal services at Rota, Spain. The protester asserts that the agency was biased in favor of Interjet, that the evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation criteria and that the selection of Interjet was unjustified. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 12, 1999, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed-price contract for all personnel, equipment, computers, tools, materials, supervision, consumables and supplies necessary to perform air terminal and ground handling services at Rota. The RFP established an 8-month base period of performance, with nine 1-year option periods and a tenth option period of 4 months. The agency had earlier--on February 17--issued a draft solicitation, with a cutoff date of March 25, 1999 for comment. The solicitation contained a statement of work (SOW) that required a contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, materials, and services to perform air terminal and ground handling services for United States military, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Air Mobility Command (AMC) military and commercial contract aircraft at Rota, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. RFP amend. 1, Para. 1, at 10. It required a capability for simultaneous service of five aircraft--three wide bodied (C-17, C-5, DC-10, or larger) and two narrow body aircraft (C-130, C-9, C-12/C-21), as well the capability of responding to unforeseen increases in workload (seven aircraft--four wide body and three narrow body--simultaneously). The SOW provided detailed information on specific services, among them: Air Terminal Operations Center operations (ATOC) (Id. Para. 1.1, at 10) involving information control, load planning, capability forecasting, and ramp coordination; cargo services (Id. Para. 1.2, at 12); fleet services involving the loading and unloading of equipment involved in maintaining lavatories and galleys and cleaning the aircraft (Id. Para. 1.3, at 15); aircraft services including positioning the aircraft for ground maintenance and marshalling chocks, boarding ladders, and maintenance stands (Id. Para. 1.3.3, at 16); passenger services (Id. Para. 1.4, at 17); communications and management of information systems (Id. Para. 1.6, at 21); and transportation, including aircrew transportation to nearby hotels and dining (two 20-member crews, within a 50-kilometer radius) and base transportation (on-base quarters) for up to 40 personnel (Id. Para. 1.15, at 27-28). The SOW also contained requirements for personnel management, safety, record maintenance, training, security, and quality control. The solicitation provided for award based on best value, considering technical acceptability, evaluated on a pass/fail basis, price, and relative capability. Id. at 98. The agency would determine relative capability on the basis of past performance and understanding of government requirements. Id. The RFP stated that the agency would contact each offeror's customers for information on past performance, defined as "a measure of the degree to which an offeror satisfied its customers in the past." Id. It directed offerors to "describe your company's past performance on directly related or similar Government or commercial contracts and subcontracts that are similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to that required by the RFP," including current contracts and those completed within the prior 5 years. Id. at 97. The solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate each offeror's relative understanding of the government's requirements and its ability to perform on the basis of an oral presentation. Id. at 99. This portion of the evaluation included five factors, as follows: understanding and approach; management of the operation and key personnel; staffing; phase-in plan; and risk analysis. Id.