United Aeronautical Corporation

B-414566 Jul 12, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Coulson Aviation (USA), Inc., of Portland, Oregon, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8504-17-R-0008, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the design, manufacture, and installation of a 3,500 gallon retardant delivery system (RDS) on seven HC-130H aircraft. The protester argues that the RFP contains terms that are unduly restrictive of competition, and contends that the procurement should be conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 procedures for the purchase of commercial items. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Coulson Aviation (USA), Inc. File:  B-414566 Date:  July 12, 2017 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Todd M. Garland, Esq., and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Heather M. Mandelkehr, Esq., and Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest arguing that a solicitation requirement is unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the agency articulated a reasonable, safety related basis for the requirement. 2.  Agency decision to conduct a procurement using other than Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 procedures did not prejudice the protester where the protester does not offer a commercial item that meets the agency's requirements. DECISION Coulson Aviation (USA), Inc., of Portland, Oregon, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8504-17-R-0008, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the design, manufacture, and installation of a 3,500 gallon retardant delivery system (RDS) on seven HC-130H aircraft.  The protester argues that the RFP contains terms that are unduly restrictive of competition, and contends that the procurement should be conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 procedures for the purchase of commercial items. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS), is responsible for protecting national forest lands from wildfires and, by agreement with other agencies, assists in protecting other jurisdictions as well.  Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1.  In this capacity, the USFS uses air tankers to drop and build retardant lines to aid ground firefighters in controlling wildfires.  Id.  The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 directed the transfer of seven demilitarized United States Coast Guard HC-130H aircraft to the Air Force.  Pub. L. No. 113-66, div. A, title X, subtitle I, § 1098, 127 Stat. 672, 881-882. (Dec. 26, 2013).  The NDAA directed the Air Force to perform center and outer wing-box replacement modifications, programmed depot-level maintenance, and modifications necessary to procure and integrate a gravity-drop aerial fire retardant dispersal system in each aircraft.  Id.  Following completion of the assigned tasks, the NDAA directed the Air Force to transfer the aircraft to the USFS for its use.  Id. On March 31, 2017, the Air Force issued the subject RFP seeking a contractor to design, engineer, develop, manufacture, and install a 3,500 gallon retardant delivery system (RDS) for the HC-130H aircraft mentioned above.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1.  The RFP establishes that the procurement will be conducted using FAR part 15 procedures, and contemplates the award of a contract with fixed-price, time-and-materials, and cost-reimbursable contract line items on a lowest-price, technically-acceptable basis, considering technical and cost/price factors.  Id.  The RFP established May 15 as the due date for the submission of proposals.  Coulson filed this timely protest on April 7.[1]   DISCUSSION Coulson argues that the RFP includes a maintenance requirement that is unduly restrictive of competition.  The protester also contends that the solicitation should be conducted in accordance with the commercial item procedures of FAR part 12.  As explained below, we find that neither argument provides a basis to sustain the protest.[2] The protester first argues that the solicitation contains an equipment maintenance requirement that is unduly restrictive of competition.  Where a protester challenges a specification or requirement as unduly restrictive of competition, the procuring agency has the responsibility of establishing that the specification or requirement is reasonably necessary to meet the agency's needs.  Air USA, Inc., B-409236, Feb.