S&K Aerospace, LLC.

B-412837 Jun 06, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Logistics Management International, Inc. (LMI), of Eastman, Georgia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8505-16-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Air Force for F-15 repair support services for the Royal Saudi Air Force. LMI challenges the Air Force's decision not to consider past performance of key personnel in its evaluation of an offeror's past performance. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Logistics Management International, Inc. File:  B-412837 Date:  June 6, 2016 Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., Doyle & Bachman LLP, for the protester. Lawrence M. Anderson, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging terms of solicitation establishing that agency would not consider past performance of an offeror’s key personnel as part of its past performance evaluation is denied where the selected past performance evaluation criteria are reasonable. DECISION Logistics Management International, Inc. (LMI), of Eastman, Georgia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8505-16-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Air Force for F-15 repair support services for the Royal Saudi Air Force.  LMI challenges the Air Force’s decision not to consider past performance of key personnel in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the RFP on January 6, 2016, for return and repair services in support of the Royal Saudi Air Force for F-15 component parts and aviation items, and for repair, refurbishment, and replacement of aerospace ground equipment (AGE) to include special purpose vehicles, hush house/open air test cell equipment, and fire and safety vehicle equipment.  RFP Synopsis at 1.  The contemplated contract involved two components:  the return or repair of over 4,000 different F-15 aviation items with an annual average of approximately 3,000 parts repaired, and approximately 800 AGE-related repairs annually.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1-2.  The solicitation advised that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of four factors:  (1) technical proposals, (2) past performance, (3) cost/price, and (4) small business concern utilization.  RFP at 127-137.  The solicitation provided that each proposal would be evaluated for technical acceptability and small business concern utilization, and that among those offerors determined to be technically acceptable with acceptable small business concern utilization, tradeoffs would be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance being significantly more important than cost/price.  RFP at 127.  With respect to evaluating past performance, the solicitation indicated that the Air Force would consider the past performance of any critical subcontractors, but would not consider key personnel of either the prime contractor or any critical subcontractors.  RFP at 97-98.  The solicitation defined a critical subcontractor as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming member), other than the offeror itself, that would perform more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price proposed for each contract line item; would be responsible for AGE; and/or would possess the Saudi business license the prime contractor would rely on to perform the efforts outlined in the performance work statement.  RFP at 97.  The solicitation also provided that offerors without a record of past performance would not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and would receive an “unknown confidence” rating, but that a strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the government than an “unknown confidence” rating.  RFP at 133. LMI submitted a solicitation question requesting that the Air Force consider amending the solicitation to allow for consideration of key personnel past performance.  Protest at 6-7.  In answers issued March 3, the Air Force responded indicating that it would not consider key personnel past performance in its evaluation.  Agency Report, Tab 8, Industry Day Questions and Responses, at 5.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION In its protest, LMI challenges the agency’s decision not to evaluate the past performance of key personnel, arguing that this decision is unduly restrictive of competition.  Protest at 8-9.  In this regard, LMI alleges that not considering key personnel past performance will undermine its ability to compete for the contract because, while its president has extensive past performance information relevant to the contract, LMI is a newly-formed company that ...