Houston Air, Inc., B-292345, August 15, 2003

B-292345 Aug 15, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the awardee's more relevant experience and past performance was reasonably found to be superior and to offset the protester's modest price advantage. The RFP was issued on March 2003 using simplified acquisition procedures. Each of the aircraft here will be used to provide an aerial platform for the government Air Attack Group Supervisor (ATGS). At issue here is the award of item No. 3 to Spur Aviation for an aircraft and pilot for Billings. Offeror capability. /2/ The offeror capability factor was comprised of two subfactors: organizational experience and organizational past performance. Will be given greater weight than reports obtained from others.". Award was to be made to the proposal that offered the "best combination of aircraft payload capacity. View Decision Houston Air, Inc., B-292345, August 15, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION American East Airways, Inc. dba Houston Air, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Spur Aviation Services by the Department of the Interior's Office of Aircraft Services, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 8003-25, for contractor operated and maintained air attack fixed wing aircraft, for use in support of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) fire management program to assist in the suppression of wildfires. Houston Air argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its experience and past performance, and made an unreasonable award decision. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on March 2003 using simplified acquisition procedures. The RFP anticipated award of up to three separate fixed-price contracts for three aircraft, based at Ely, Nevada, Richfield, Utah, and Billings, Montana, for "exclusive use" during the fire season, with three option periods of the same duration for the fire seasons in the next 3 years. Each of the aircraft here will be used to provide an aerial platform for the government Air Attack Group Supervisor (ATGS), who provides communication and direction to tactical, fire suppression aircraft. The contractor-provided pilot and the ATGS essentially control the airspace over the fire area, thereby helping to reduce the risk of mid-air collision of aircraft. At issue here is the award of item No. 3 to Spur Aviation for an aircraft and pilot for Billings, Montana for "exclusive use" 14 hours a day for the 86-calendar day fire season (with the three options). The RFP advised that the offers would be evaluated for award based on the following evaluation factors: evaluated price, aircraft payload capacity /1/, and offeror capability. /2/ The offeror capability factor was comprised of two subfactors: organizational experience and organizational past performance. With regard to organizational past performance, the RFP stated, "[o]ur own experience with you, if any, will be given greater weight than reports obtained from others." RFP Sec. D3.4.2. Award was to be made to the proposal that offered the "best combination of aircraft payload capacity, offeror capability, and evaluated price." RFP Sec. D3.5. The agency received eight proposals, including those of Houston Air and Spur, by the April 1 closing date. The contracting officer eliminated two proposals as being unreasonably high priced, and compared the remaining six proposals based on price and the non-price factors. Spur's proposal was the only one that received an excellent rating for the aircraft payload capacity factor and for the organizational experience and organizational past performance subfactors. /3/ Spur's evaluated price for item No. 3 was second highest at $588,660. /4/ Houston Air's proposal also received an excellent rating for the aircraft payload capacity factor, and received good ratings for the organizational experience and organizational past performance subfactors. Houston Air's evaluated price for item No. 3 was fourth highest at $560,660. Agency Report, Tab 16, Source Selection Decision, at 6. The contracting officer concluded that Spur's proposal represented the best value to the government and made award to that firm for item No. 3. The contracting officer's explanation for selecting Spur's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award was as follows: Item 3- Spur Aviation is the highest rated offer under all 3 items; however, this firm limited its offer to award of 1 item. Their price is higher than 4 other firms. The additional costs for Spur Aviation is insignificant in comparison to the excellent experience and past performance of Spur Aviation, specifically working for the BLM in the western area. Billings, Montana can take advantage of Spur Aviation's increased aircraft payload capabilities due to use of the aircraft as a training platform where a third crewperson will be a normal compl[e]ment. Id. at 7. This protest, contesting the agency's award of item No.