AQuate Corporation

B-411909 Nov 18, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AQuate Corporation, of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to CNI Aviation Advantage (CNI), of Norman, Oklahoma, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8629-14-R-2408, issued by the Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, for support for its Rapid Development Integration Facility (RDIF) in Ohio. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:  AQuate Corporation File:  B-411909 Date:  November 18, 2015 J. Dale Gipson, Esq., Michael W. Rich, Esq., and Tracy A. Marion, Esq., Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne PC, for the protester. Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., William M. Pannier, Esq., and Daniel P. Hanlon, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for the intervenor. Anna F. Kurtz, Esq., and Maj. George M. Ebert, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of source selection decision is denied where record shows that agency’s source selection decision was adequately documented and reasonable under the solicitation’s evaluation scheme. DECISION AQuate Corporation, of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to CNI Aviation Advantage (CNI), of Norman, Oklahoma, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8629-14-R-2408, issued by the Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, for support for its Rapid Development Integration Facility (RDIF) in Ohio. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The primary function of the Rapid Development Integration Facility is aircraft part development, integration, prototyping, modification and production on a variety of military aircraft.  RFP, Performance Work Statement (PWS), § 3.0.  The solicitation, issued August 11, 2014, sought proposals to provide support for the agency’s Rapid Development Integration Facility through the provision of services in 23 PWS elements, including such areas as:  computer aided drafting (CAD) drawing; precision machining; welding; maintenance and overhaul of aircraft components; hydraulic testing and repair; purchasing material support; integration of mechanical and electrical subsystems; research, development, and prototyping; test and evaluation of new designs; aircraft modification; and program management.  RFP, PWS, § 5.0.  The RFP provided for award of a fixed unit-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value considering the following factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  The technical factor was to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.  Past performance was significantly more important than price, and the solicitation provided that a tradeoff would be made between past performance and price among those proposals determined to be technically acceptable.  RFP § M.1. The agency received five proposals by the solicitation’s closing date, including those submitted by AQuate and CNI.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 5.  After evaluating proposals, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) assigned the following ratings to the proposals of AQuate and CNI:   AQuate CNI Technical Acceptable Acceptable Past Performance Satisfactory Confidence Substantial Confidence Evaluated Price $19,195,394 $20,590,914 Agency Report (AR), Tab 21, SSEB Report (unnumbered), at 50. In comparing the proposals of AQuate and CNI, the SSEB found that AQuate performed very relevant work in only 5 of the 23 PWS elements, while CNI performed very relevant work in all 23 elements.  AR, Tab 21, SSEB Report, at 50‑51.  Although AQuate demonstrated past performance that had some degree of relevance in 18 of the 23 elements, the SSEB noted that the protester failed to demonstrate any relevant past performance for the remaining 5 elements.  In this regard, the SSEB stated that “demonstrated ability to perform all of the elements [of the PWS] is crucial to the Government’s confidence.”  Id. at 51.  In making its award recommendation to the source selection authority (SSA), the SSEB noted that past performance was significantly more important than price, and that AQuate’s price was only 6.78% lower than CNI’s.  Id.  In addition, the SSEB noted that CNI’s superior past performance could reduce lead time and result in cost savings.  The SSEB concluded that CNI’s superior past performance outweighed the price advantage associated with AQuate’s proposal.  Id.