SupplyCore, Inc.

B-411015 Apr 22, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dalma Tech2 Company (DTC), of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, protests the award of a foreign military sales contract to SupplyCore, Inc., of Rockford, Illinois, by the United States Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8505-13-R-31138, for F-15 fighter jet transportation support services (TSS) for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF). DTC challenges the agency's determination that SupplyCore's proposal was technically acceptable, and the agency's evaluation of DTC's past performance. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Dalma Tech2 Company File: B-411015 Date: April 22, 2015 Kevin W. Cushing, for the protester. William E. Hughes III, Esq., Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., for SupplyCore, Inc., the intervenor. Maj. Michael G. King, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal as technically acceptable is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Dalma Tech2 Company (DTC), of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, protests the award of a States Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8505-13-R-31138, for F‑15 fighter jet transportation support services (TSS) for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF). DTC challenges the agency’s determination that SupplyCore’s proposal was technically acceptable, and the agency’s evaluation of DTC’s past performance.[1] We deny the protest.[2] BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals for comprehensive fleet management of various special‑purpose vehicles and trailers to support base stand-ups and continued RSAF operation of F-15s. RFP, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 3. The contractor will provide all transportation and support services required to source, procure, track, warehouse, and deliver assets needed within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to support RSAF F-15 operations. Id. The RFP contemplated the award of a single, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, with a 12-month basic ordering period and four, 12-month option ordering periods. RFP at 3. For purposes of award, the Air Force was to evaluate proposals under the following factors: technical; past performance; and cost/price. Id. at 143.[3] The technical factor included two subfactors: (1) integrated processes and management, and (2) In-Kingdom operations.[4] Id. Relevant to the issues in this protest, the In‑Kingdom operations subfactor required offerors to submit an In-Kingdom Execution Plan that sufficiently demonstrated: (1) the offeror’s knowledge and understanding of In-Kingdom laws, customs, licenses required (to include a copy of an actual Saudi business license), and employment terms (in accordance with PWS ¶¶ 4.9, 4.10); and (2) the offeror’s ability to fulfill local purchase requirements (in accordance with PWS ¶ 4.6). Id. at 144. Paragraph 4.9 of the PWS, in relevant part, requires the contractor to “have a Saudi business license or maintain a sponsorship/teaming effort with a Saudi company,” and to “establish and maintain an operating location at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.” RFP, PWS, at 6. With regard to past performance, the Air Force was to assess an offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. RFP at 145. The RFP advised offerors that the Air Force would evaluate the relevance of each past performance reference. Id. In addition to comparing the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities relative to those required by the RFP, the Air Force was to evaluate whether the past performance reference demonstrated the following experience: (1) foreign military sales or direct commercial sales material procurement; (2) procurement negotiations; (3) electronic asset visibility tracking and reporting; (4) subcontractor management; (5) international teaming agreements and/or international operations management; (6) packing, handling, shipping, and transportation management; and (7) quality assurance management. Id. The RFP stated that the relevance rating for each reference would be based on the scope, magnitude and complexity of the effort, and whether the reference demonstrated experience in the seven enumerated areas of experience, as follows:   Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Relevant Scope & Magnitude / Complexity of Effort Essentially the same Similar Some Little or none Specific Experience 7 of 7 5-6 of 7 2-4 of 7 N/A Id.