Coastal Defense, Inc.

B-413890 Dec 19, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Coastal Defense, Inc. (CDI), of Mill Hall, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Blue Air Training, LLC, of Las Vegas, Nevada, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4861-16-R-B002 for flight training services. CDI challenges the agency's evaluation of its own proposal and the agency's decision not to conduct discussions. 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:  Coastal Defense, Inc. File:  B-413890 Date:  December 19, 2016 Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., Esq., and Gary S. Ward, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Col. C. Taylor Smith, and Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s proposal and unreasonably declined to enter into discussions with offerors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and the agency’s decision not to enter into discussions was properly within its broad discretion. DECISION Coastal Defense, Inc. (CDI), of Mill Hall, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Blue Air Training, LLC, of Las Vegas, Nevada, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4861-16-R-B002 for flight training services.  CDI challenges the agency’s evaluation of its own proposal and the agency’s decision not to conduct discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 14, 2016, sought proposals to operate and maintain tactically-relevant aircraft for Close Air Support sorties in support of training for the 6th Combat Training Squadron and the Joint Terminal Attack Control Contract Close Air Support Training (JTAC CCAS Training) Program located at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada.  RFP Performance Work Statement (PWS) at ¶ 1.1.1.  One contract was to be awarded on a best-value basis considering technical, performance confidence and price factors.  RFP at 57.  The technical factor was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis considering three subfactors:  contract implementation plan, safety plan and aircraft plan.  Id.  Past performance was to be evaluated on the basis of recency, relevancy and performance quality, and proposals were to be assigned a confidence rating ranging from no confidence to substantial confidence.  Id. at 61-62.  If the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer received a substantial confidence rating, it was to be the best-value offeror without further consideration of any other offers.  Id. at 62.  If the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror did not receive a substantial confidence rating, the agency was to conduct a tradeoff, considering past performance to be approximately equal to price.  Id. at 57, 62. Under the contract implementation plan subfactor, the agency was to evaluate “the offeror’s plan to implement the requirements of the [PWS]. This subfactor is met when the offerors present a sound and realistic proposal to achieve all requirements within the [PWS].”  Id. at 58.  Among other evaluation elements emphasized in the subfactor, offerors were to clearly show the capability to provide JTAC Training Flights, clearly demonstrate how in-person pre-briefs and debriefs will take place, and describe how the contractor will meet the government’s requirement if aircraft are taken out of service for safety, maintenance, damage repair, or any other reason.  Id.  Additionally, a question and answer document states, in relevant part, “[t]he Contractor will be required to determine what airfield they will conduct their flight operations from.  No Government airfield will be provided to the Contractor to use for their flight operations.”  AR, exh. 12, Question and Answer Document, at 3. As relevant here, section M of the RFP instructed offerors, “[t]he Government intends to make award without discussions….  However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines discussions to be necessary.  For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any subfactor will be unawardable.”  Id.