B-299382, C. Martin Company, Inc., April 17, 2007

B-299382 Apr 17, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights C. Martin Company, Inc. (CMC) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-06-R-0153, issued by the Department of the Air Force for maintenance and operation of the Air Force's Primary Training Ranges. CMC maintains that any deficiencies in its proposal were minor, and that it should have been provided an opportunity to correct them. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299382, C. Martin Company, Inc., April 17, 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: C. Martin Company, Inc. File: B-299382 Date: April 17, 2007 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP, for the protester. Maj. Kevin J. Wilkinson, and Lt. Col. David L. Bell, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's contention that its proposal was improperly excluded from competition is denied where exclusion was based on agency's reasonable determination that proposal was technically unacceptable due to its inclusion of outdated regulations, procedures and requirements, indicating a lack of understanding or awareness of solicitation requirements. DECISION C. Martin Company, Inc. (CMC) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-06-R-0153, issued by the Department of the Air Force for maintenance and operation of the Air Force's PrimaryTrainingRanges. CMC maintains that any deficiencies in its proposal were minor, and that it should have been provided an opportunity to correct them. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on October 17, 2006 as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 6-month base period, with five 1-year options. The RFP provided for a three-step evaluation. First, technical proposals were to be evaluated as acceptable, reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable, or unacceptable based on five evaluation criteria: program management, transition plan, maintenance/logistics, quality, and operations approach. RFP at 108-111. An unacceptable rating under any criterion would render the technical proposal unacceptable, and the proposal would no longer be considered for award. RFP at 108. Second, the agency would evaluate the price reasonableness of the remaining proposals, and then rank them according to overall evaluated price. Third, the agency would evaluate past performance, starting with the lowest-priced offeror, and then make award to the firm offering the –best value— to the government. The RFP further informed offerors that the agency may make award based on initial proposals, and that an offeror's first proposal therefore should be its best proposal. RFP at 107. The technical evaluation team rated CMC's proposal as unacceptable under the operations approach and maintenance/logistics criteria and, while the agency proceeded to establish a competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions, it rejected CMC's proposal on this basis. In this regard, CMC's proposal was found to contain numerous references to outdated Air Force regulations, performance standards, and requirements under both criteria. For example, under the operations approach subfactor, the proposal offered to use procedures and to comply with regulations that had been obsolete for at least 3 years, offered to provide scoring on the training range in formats that no longer exist, and proposed staffing for a system (a –jammer—) that was required under a prior solicitation, but not under the RFP here. The proposal also referenced other requirements (such as mission –aborts— for the training range) that were no longer part of the RFP. Similarly, under the maintenance/logistics criterion, CMC proposed to use outdated technical orders, offered to provide maintenance duties on a 50-day rotation--the requirement under the previous solicitation--rather than the 75'day rotation called for under this solicitation, and provided outdated employee qualifications, among other things. On December 21, 2006, CMC learned that its proposal had been rejected and, following a pre-award debriefing, it filed this protest. CMC challenges each of the evaluated deficiencies, asserting that the findings are either wrong or constitute minor deficiencies that would not require a substantial revision to its proposal. CMC cites as an example of a mistaken deficiency its offer to provide certain maintenance duties on a 50-day rotation, rather than the 75-day rotation required under the solicitation.