Al Raha Group for Technical Services

B-412963.3 Sep 19, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Al Raha Group for Technical Services, of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8505-16-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for F-15 supply services, logistics, and other support services for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF). Al Raha challenges the pricing requirements and terms of the solicitation as vague and undefined, and claims that this vagueness prevents offerors from competing on a common basis. 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:  Al Raha Group for Technical Services File:  B-412963.3 Date:  September 19, 2016 Gerard I. Doyle, Esq., and Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., Doyle & Bachman LLP, for the protester. Anna F. Kurtz, 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 solicitation as vague and undefined is denied where the solicitation includes best estimates of the agency’s needs and sufficiently detailed information for offerors to intelligently prepare their proposals on a common basis. DECISION Al Raha Group for Technical Services, of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8505-16-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for F-15 supply services, logistics, and other support services for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF).  Al Raha challenges the pricing requirements and terms of the solicitation as vague and undefined, and claims that this vagueness prevents offerors from competing on a common basis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the RFP on February 4, 2016, for supply services in support of the RSAF, including logistics support personnel, supply chain management related to consumable items, and print plant operations.  See RFP at 1.  The RFP contemplates a single-award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract, on a primarily fixed-price incentive basis.  Id. at 6 and 72.  The RFP provides for a basic ordering period of 24 months, with three 12-month options, but notes that the period of performance for individual orders will vary, with no minimum guaranteed period of performance after the initial order.  Id. at 6.  The RFP provides that proposals will be evaluated pursuant to four factors (technical, small business utilization, past performance, and price) using a two-step process.  First, proposals would be evaluated for technical acceptability and small business utilization.  Second, among those found acceptable, tradeoffs would be made between past performance and price, with past performance being significantly more important than price.  Id. at 107. The RFP instructs offerors to provide prices for two contract line item numbers (CLINs) for the base period and each of the option periods.  See RFP at 70-72.  CLIN 0001 is to be priced on a fixed-price incentive basis for parts, print plant services, management, and materials, and CLIN 0002 is to be priced on a fixed‑price basis for certain labor costs which are not at issue in this protest.  Id. at 72.  Industry questions and answers (Q&A) clarified that the pricing for CLIN 0001 should include, among other things, all costs to offerors for transportation, management, and acquisition of “catalog parts,” which refers to parts corresponding to 18,168 national stock numbers (NSNs) enumerated in an appendix to the RFP.  See Agency Report, Tab 25, Industry Questions and Answers of May 16, 2016 at 2.  The RFP instructed offerors to price CLIN 0001 on a monthly basis, and to provide pricing for three ranges:  0-7,000 parts managed, 7,001-14,000 parts managed, and 14,001-20,000 parts managed.  RFP at 71.  While the total number of actual catalog parts needed under the effort is not known, the RFP provides that the parts requirements to be priced under CLIN 0001 will be primarily based on refilling bench stock[1] to authorized levels as it is depleted, and filling depot supply replenishment orders.  Id. at 21. The CLIN 0001 pricing provisions and related portions of the RFP have been the subject of two prior protests, including one by Al Raha, raising questions concerning the parts ranges and quantity of information provided concerning catalog parts.  In response, the Air Force amended the solicitation and clarified the requirements, which rendered academic the two protests.  The Boeing Company, B-412963.1, Apr.