Houston Air, Inc., B-292382, August 25, 2003

B-292382 Aug 25, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher technically rated quotation for award where agency reasonably determined that awardee's technical advantages were worth the higher price. There was nothing improper in obtaining clarifications from the awardee and not giving the protester an opportunity to correct a major deficiency under one of the evaluation factors that rendered its quotation unacceptable under that factor. Houston challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation and alleges that unequal discussions were conducted. Award was to be made "on the basis of price and other factors including past performance. Contractors were to submit for evaluation a weight and balance sheet and completed questionnaires pertaining to aircraft capability. View Decision Houston Air, Inc., B-292382, August 25, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Houston Air, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Commander Northwest Ltd., by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ R1-03-26, to provide air tactical fixed-wing aircraft services for fire management and other missions primarily in the Northern Region National Forests. Houston challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation and alleges that unequal discussions were conducted. We deny the protest. The USDA requires aircraft to operate as an "Air Attack Platform" for Air Tactical Group Supervisors (ATGS) conducting and directing aerial incident fire management activities. The ATGS use the aircraft as an aerial "eye in the sky" to perform fire surveillance and reconnaissance, provide input to ground fire managers, and coordinate wildfire suppression efforts. The aircraft may also be used to perform Page 2 B-292382 point-to-point flights, transport passengers and cargo, and perform other missions, including training of new ATGS. The RFQ, issued as a simplified commercial item acquisition under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 13.5, provides for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with two 1-year options. Award was to be made "on the basis of price and other factors including past performance, weight and balance sheet based on [RFQ Sec.]C.11b. Payload /1/, experience, safety, qualifications of pilots, equipment, and maintenance." RFQ Sec. E.3. Contractors were to submit for evaluation a weight and balance sheet and completed questionnaires pertaining to aircraft capability, personnel, company and mechanics, aircraft avionics, safety and maintenance, and past performance. Contractors also were to provide for evaluation fixed prices on a per-hour and per-day basis during a "mandatory availability period" (either 80 or 90 days, depending on the schedule option) specified in the RFQ. The RFQ stated that quotations "shall meet, or exceed" the stated performance requirements listed in RFQ Sec. C.11, including the minimum requirements for space for a pilot plus three passengers, and minimal restrictions on outward visibility for the front and rear seat observers; additional requirements were stated for payload, avionics, personnel, and other aircraft features. Six quotations were received in response to the RFQ, with Houston submitting the lowest one, and Commander submitting the second lowest one. /2/ For each questionnaire section, quotations were rated outstanding, good, fair, or unacceptable, with pluses and minuses to indicate variations within a rating; these ratings were assigned points ranging from zero points for outstanding to three points for unacceptable. The technical ratings for Houston and Commander were as follows: . Commander Houston Aircraft Capability Good+ Good Personnel Good Good+ Company and Mechanic Good+ Good Aircraft Avionics Outstanding Good+ Safety and Maintenance Good-- Good Past Performance Outstanding Good-- Weight and Balance Good Unacceptable Total Points 6.5 12.5 AR at 6; Tab C.1, Flip Chart Worksheets, at 5. The USDA noted several advantages to the Commander aircraft, including a useful payload of 2,778 pounds, which was greater than Houston's payload of 2,214 pounds. Furthermore, Houston did not submit a weight and balance sheet or provide all of the information pertaining to the weight and balance factor, which led the agency to assess an unacceptable rating for this factor. The USDA noted that in a prior contract, the weight of Houston's aircraft was understated on one occasion by almost 500 pounds, which raised concern about Houston's ability to meet the weight and balance requirements of the RFQ. AR, Tab C.4, Contracting Officer's Determination of Award, at 1-2; Contracting Officer's Statement Paras. 55, 60. The USDA also found advantageous the Commander aircraft's capacity to carry six passengers, and the visibility afforded passengers from specially designed bubble windows located at all observation seats.