Bode Aviation, Inc.

B-411265 Jun 26, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bode Aviation, Inc., of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, to Dynamic Aviation Group, Inc., of Bridgewater, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. AG-04H1-S-15-0001 for airtanker services. Bode protests that Dynamic did not have a particular Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certificate at the time of award and asserts that Dynamic's proposal should have been disqualified on that basis. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Bode Aviation, Inc. File: B-411265 Date: June 26, 2015 Kevin Fredekind, Bode Aviation, Inc., and Martin K. Holland, Esq., Holland Law P.C., for the protester. Elin M. Dugan, Esq., U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that awardee did not hold a particular Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certificate at the time of contract award is denied where FAA certification was a performance requirement, and the solicitation did not require that certification be obtained prior to award. DECISION Bode Aviation, Inc., of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, to Dynamic Aviation Group, Inc., of Bridgewater, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. AG-04H1-S-15-0001 for airtanker services. Bode protests that Dynamic did not have a particular Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certificate at the time of award and asserts that Dynamic’s proposal should have been disqualified on that basis.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 20, 2015, the agency published the solicitation at issue, seeking proposals for airtankers to be used in the Forest Services’ wildland firefighting mission. The solicitation provided for separate contract awards for two items, and vendors were permitted to submit quotations for one or both line items.[2] The solicitation further provided for award on a best value basis and established the following evaluation factors: technical capability,[3] past performance and price. RFQ, at 96. Offerors were advised that the non-price factors combined were approximately equal in importance to price. Id. Of relevance here, the solicitation’s statement of work (SOW) included certain certification requirements, including the following: Contractors shall hold a current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Carrier or Operating Certificate. Aircraft offered shall be listed by make, model, series, and registration number on the Operator’s 14 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 135 Operating Certificate. Id. at 17. On or before the February 20, 2015 closing date, the agency received seven quotations for line item 2, including quotations submitted by Bode and Dynamic.[4] Although Bode’s quotation was rated slightly higher than Dynamic’s under the non‑price evaluation factors,[5] Bode’s evaluated price was more than double Dynamic’s evaluated price.[6] On March 12, Dynamic’s quotation was selected for award. This protest followed. DISCUSSION Bode refers to the FAA certification requirement in the solicitation’s SOW, quoted above, and asserts that “the solicitation required bidders to have certification for the contract aircraft at the time of the bid proposal.” Bode’s Comments on AR at 2. We disagree. In the absence of a solicitation requirement that offerors provide proof of qualifications or certifications prior to award, such requirements contained in a solicitation’s SOW constitute performance provisions rather than preconditions for award. See, e.g., Ronsons SDVOSB P&L JV-1, B-410605, Jan. 6, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 1 at 5-6; Evergreen Fire & Sec., B-296510, Aug. 22, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 165 at 3; Central Air Service, Inc., B-242283, B-242283.4, June 26, 1991, 91-2 CPD ¶ 8 at 9; United HealthServ Inc., B-232640 et al., Jan. 18, 1989, 89-1 CPD ¶ 43 at 6-7. Whether an offeror complies with such qualification and certification requirements is a matter of contract administration, which we do not review as part of our bid protest function. See, e.g., 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(a); SIMMEC Training Solutions, B‑406819, Aug. 20, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 238 at 6. Here, we reject Bode’s assertion that the terms of the solicitation required vendors to obtain the FAA certification prior to contract award. Specifically, the solicitation’s SOW provided that “Contractors” must hold the required certificate, and nothing in the solicitation’s instructions to vendors or its evaluation criteria provided that certification must be obtained prior to award.