Frasca International, Inc., B-293299, February 6, 2004

B-293299 Feb 06, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency improperly consolidated requirements for pilot training with flight training devices in violation of the Competition in Contracting Act is denied. Thus the protester has not shown that it was prejudiced. Which were previously procured under separate contracts. Interested firms were provided a site visit to familiarize them with the government-furnished property required to be used under the contract. Five of which were FTD suppliers. Frasca is one of the small business FTD suppliers that responded to the "sources sought" notice. Whose facilities were visited by the Navy. The RFP was then issued on October 6. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the government. View Decision Frasca International, Inc., B-293299, February 6, 2004 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Frasca International, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-03-R-0084, issued by the Department of the Navy for pilot instructors and flight training devices (FTD) to administer classroom and simulator training for the TC-12B aircraft. Frasca contends that "bundling" of the FTDs with the other training services, which were previously procured under separate contracts, contravenes the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). We deny the protest. In August and September of 2003, the Navy published a "sources sought" notice and two pre-solicitation notices concerning the requirement for pilot training and two FTDs. Both small and large businesses responded to these notices, and interested firms were provided a site visit to familiarize them with the government-furnished property required to be used under the contract. At least seven small businesses, five of which were FTD suppliers, attended the site visit, and the agency visited the facilities of four FTD suppliers, including two small businesses. Frasca is one of the small business FTD suppliers that responded to the "sources sought" notice, attended the site visit, and whose facilities were visited by the Navy. The RFP was then issued on October 6, 2003 as a small business set-aside. The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price contract for a base year of approximately 3 years and 8 months, with a first option for 1 year and a second option for approximately 4 months. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the government, based on technical, past performance, and price. The date set for receipt of initial proposals was November 12; however, past performance proposals were due by October 27 at 2 p.m. The RFP specified that proposals were to be submitted in hard copy and disk format. At 2:01 p.m. on October 27, Frasca submitted a past performance proposal by e-mail transmission. Its proposal provided references for itself as the prime contractor who would provide the FTDs, and a subcontractor proposed to perform the training portion of the work. On October 29, the Navy notified Frasca that its proposal was rejected as untimely and would not be further considered. On November 6, the Navy amended the RFP, making minor changes to the solicitation and extending the date for receipt of proposals (including the past performance proposal) until 2 p.m. on November 17. The Navy provided a copy of this amendment to Frasca and invited it to submit a proposal. Frasca requested an extension of time to respond to the RFP, but the Navy denied the request. On November 17, [REDACTED] small business offerors submitted proposals. These offerors are FTD suppliers who had attended the site visit. Frasca did not submit a proposal, but instead protested to our Office prior to the RFP's extended closing time for receipt of proposals. Frasca contends that the Navy improperly consolidated the FTD requirements with the training requirements in violation of CICA. CICA generally requires that solicitations include specifications which permit full and open competition, and contain restrictive provisions and conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency. See 10 U.S.C. Secs. 2503(a)(1)(A), (B) (2000). Since bundled or consolidated procurements combine separate, multiple requirements into one contract, they have the potential for restricting competition by excluding firms that can furnish only a portion of the requirement. We review such solicitations, when they are protested, to determine whether the consolidation is reasonably required to satisfy the agency's legitimate needs. AirTrak Travel et al., B-292101 et al., June 30, 2003, 2003 CPD Para.