B-298240.2, Kolob Canyons Air Service, July 11, 2006

B-298240.2 Jul 11, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kolob Canyons Air Service protests its exclusion from the competitive range, and the award of a contract to Courtney Aviation, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. R5-06-20-001, issued by the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, for aircraft in support of air attack operations. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298240.2, Kolob Canyons Air Service, July 11, 2006 Decision Matter of: Kolob Canyons Air Service File: B-298240.2 Date: July 11, 2006 Jeff Obering for the protester. Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, PC, for Courtney Aviation, Inc., an intervenor. Mark G. Garrett, Esq., U.S. Forest Service, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Exclusion of protester's offer from competitive range as technically unacceptable was unobjectionable where agency reasonably concluded that protester's offered planes did not meet solicitation's avionics requirements or provide sufficiently detailed plans for making planes compliant with those requirements. DECISION Kolob Canyons Air Service protests its exclusion from the competitive range, and the award of a contract to Courtney Aviation, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. R5-06-20-001, issued by the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, for aircraft in support of air attack operations. We deny the protest. The Forest Service is responsible for protecting National Forest lands from wild land fires, and also assists in protecting other jurisdictions. To ensure the efficiency and safety of aviation operations, the agency deploys tactical aircraft to serve as platforms for air attack supervisors, which coordinate the use of airspace above incidents and disasters to ensure that air operations accomplish the objectives of the incident commander on the ground. These aircraft operate in very complex environments and must provide a communication capability for multiple contacts on the ground and in the air. The RFP contemplated the award of a requirements contract for light aircraft to support this mission and to provide other flight services for administrative purposes, including law enforcement and transport of personnel and/or cargo. The solicitation provided for award to be made to the offeror or offerors whose conforming proposals were considered most advantageous to the government, and advised that award would be made on the basis of initial proposals. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and three capability factors--aircraft acceptability (including avionics), past performance, and maintenance. (Capability and past performance, combined, were approximately equal in weight to price.) Offerors were specifically advised that –[q]uoted aircraft must meet the minimum requirements stated in the Solicitation.— RFP sect. M.1. Relevant to this protest, the RFP included a number of mandatory aircraft avionics requirements, including a requirement for audio control systems to monitor the six radios--three VHF-AM and three VHF-FM''to be installed in each aircraft. Kolob and Courtney were among several offerors that submitted proposals. In evaluating Kolob's proposal, the agency determined that the current avionics configuration of Kolob's proposed aircraft did not meet the solicitation's avionics requirements, resulting in a total of 13 discrepancies, and that Kolob's proposal did not include a plan describing how the aircraft would comply with the avionics requirements. Based on this evaluation, the contracting officer determined that Kolob's proposal was technically unacceptable, and excluded it from the competitive range. Kolob thereupon filed this protest. Kolob asserts that the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range was improper. Specifically, while its aircraft radio package as currently configured did not meet the avionics requirements, Kolob maintains that its proposal adequately explained how all radios would be configured to meet the avionics requirements prior to the contract start. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and subsequent competitive range determination, we will not evaluate the proposals anew in order to make our own determination of their acceptability or relative merits; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the documented evaluation was fair, reasonable, and consistent with the evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations. See Ervin & Assocs., Inc., B-280993, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 151 at 3.