Crew Training International, Inc.

B-414126 Feb 07, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Crew Training International, Inc., (CTI) of Memphis, Tennessee, protests its exclusion from the competitive range pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3002-16-R-0014, which was issued by the Department of the Air Force for prequalification flight training of international military students. CTI maintains that an ambiguity in the solicitation prevented the firm from properly pricing its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Crew Training International, Inc. File:  B-414126 Date:  February 7, 2017 Sarah Bryan, Esq., for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Christopher S. Cole, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that a solicitation contained a latent ambiguity is denied where the protester’s interpretation of the solicitation language is not reasonable when the solicitation is read as a whole. DECISION Crew Training International, Inc., (CTI) of Memphis, Tennessee, protests its exclusion from the competitive range pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3002-16-R-0014, which was issued by the Department of the Air Force for prequalification flight training of international military students.  CTI maintains that an ambiguity in the solicitation prevented the firm from properly pricing its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on February 23, 2016, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13, contemplated the award of a single indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for prequalification flight training for international military students.  RFP at 1, 3, 59, 116.[1]  Orders for the aviation courses would be issued on a fixed-price basis during a 5-year ordering period.  Id. at 7‑42, 61.  The RFP provided that award would be made to the firm that submitted the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable offer with acceptable past performance.[2]  Id. at 116.  The solicitation sought four different types of basic aviation courses--private pilot, instrument rating, multi‑engine pilot, and multi-engine turbo prop--as well as logistical support such as lodging and transportation.  Id. at 7-36; Performance Work Statement (PWS) ¶¶ 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 3.  The RFP laid out the various contract requirements, including the different aviation courses, as separate contract line item numbers (CLINs).  Each CLIN stated a “MAX QUANTITY” and offerors were to provide a unit price; the CLINs explained that the “[p]rice is per student.”  RFP at 7‑36.  For example, CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001 were for the private pilot course (for different 12-month periods of performance) with maximum quantities of eight, seven, seven, six, and six, respectively.  Id. at 7, 13, 19, 25, 31.  The three other courses were delineated in a similar CLIN structure, with CLINs X002 being for the instrument rating course, X003 for the multi-engine pilot course, and X004 for the turbo prop aircraft course; maximum quantities were always six, seven, or eight.[3]  See id. at 7-32.  The agency published questions and answers regarding the procurement.[4]  In response to a question about the projected number of students that would participate in each course, the agency answered as follows:  “Anticipated student load is 6-8 students per course per year. . . .  The number of courses per year will vary based upon when the Government request[s] training for a student or students.”  Agency Report (AR), Tab 14, Industry Question and Answers (Q&As), at 2 (Question 15); see also id. at 3 (Question 20) (also advising that the anticipated student load was six to eight students).  In two additional questions, the agency was asked to clarify whether the quantities in CLINs 0001-0004 represented classes or individual students.  Id. at 6 (Questions 56 and 57).  The agency responded that the numbers represented “individual students” and that the numbers were “[p]er [s]tudent per [c]ourse.”  Id.; see also id. at 4 (Question 34) (confirming that the CLINs for the turbo prop course were always for six students, i.e., the quantity six represented the number of students). The agency received proposals from eight offerors, including CTI, prior to the July 12 submission deadline.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 7, 10.  CTI’s $4,414,327 proposal--the sixth lowest-priced proposal--initially was rated technically unacceptable.  Id. at 10.  The two lowest-priced offers were rated technically acceptable with acceptable past performance, but the agency had concerns regarding unbalanced pricing with the lowest-priced offer.  Id.