B-299175; B-299175.2, Geo-Seis Helicopters, Inc., March 5, 2007

B-299175; B-299175.2, Geo-Seis Helicopters, Inc., March 5, 2007 TITLE: B-299175; B-299175.2, Geo-Seis Helicopters, Inc., March 5, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299175; B-299175.2 DATE: March 5, 2007 *************************************************************** B-299175; B-299175.2, Geo-Seis Helicopters, Inc., March 5, 2007 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Geo-Seis Helicopters, Inc. File: B-299175; B-299175.2 Date: March 5, 2007 Robert K. Stewart, Jr., Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, for the protester. John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., David Hammond, Esq., and Adelicia Cliffe Taylor, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Presidential Airways, Inc., an intervenor. Robert M. Elwell, Esq., and Michelle L. Salter, Esq., Military Sealift Command, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where awardee's final proposal revision (FPR) was received after closing time, it was unobjectionable for contracting officer to extend closing time to provide awardee another opportunity to timely submit its FPR; agency properly may extend closing time under these circumstances where extension is intended to enhance competition. 2. Price/technical tradeoff was reasonable where record demonstrates that, based on consideration of evaluation documents, source selection authority concluded that awardee's and protester's proposals were technically equal, and that protester's superior past performance was not sufficient to offset awardee's lower price. DECISION Geo-Seis Helicopters, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Presidential Airways, Inc. for commercial helicopter vertical replenishment (VERTREP) services under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-05-R-1004, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command. Geo-Seis principally argues that MSC improperly selected Presidential's proposal for award. We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, provided for award on a "best value" basis, considering (in descending order of importance) technical factors--detachment specifications (with equally-weighted subfactors for airframe specifications and mission capability), and support concept and experience (with equally-weighted subfactors for maintenance plan, logistics plan, personnel plan, casualty plan, quality plan, and safety plan)--price, and past performance. Regarding past performance, offerors were required to provide questionnaires from references for at least three prior contracts. Offerors were also required to submit aircraft casualty and personnel fatality information for each of the three contracts and to explain the reasons for any casualty or fatality and steps taken to prevent a recurrence. The agency received six proposals, which were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB),[1] established a competitive range, held four rounds of discussions, and requested two rounds of final proposal revisions (FPR). Following the evaluation of the second FPRs, both Geo-Seis's and Presidential's proposals were rated "exceeds satisfactory" for each technical evaluation subfactor, while Geo-Seis was rated "exceptional" and Presidential "neutral" for past performance. Presidential's proposed price was $92,977,882, and Geo-Seis's was $100,376,241. The agency performed a best value analysis and determined that Presidential's and Geo-Seis's proposals were equal technically, and that Geo-Seis's higher past performance rating was not sufficient to offset Presidential's lower price. The agency therefore made award to Presidential. Geo-Seis challenges the award decision. In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. Philips Med. Sys. of North Am., B-293945.2, June 17, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 129 at 2. We have reviewed the record and find Geo-Seis's arguments to be without merit. We discuss several of those arguments below. EVALUATION Past Performance Geo-Seis asserts that MSC improperly assigned Presidential a neutral past performance rating. In this regard, the protester maintains that this rating fails to account for the fact that Presidential had experienced an aircraft casualty that resulted in aircraft damage and personnel fatalities and that, had this information been properly considered, Presidential would have received a negative past performance rating. This argument is without merit.