R4 Integration, Inc.

B-414592 Jun 30, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights R4 Integration, Inc., of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, protests the award of a contract to iAccess Technologies, Inc., of Santa Ana, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8625-16-R-6601, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the modification of avionics systems on 172 C-130H aircraft. R4 challenges the agency's evaluation of its past performance. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  R4 Integration, Inc. File:  B-414592 Date:  June 30, 2017 John S. Parsley, for the protester. Colonel C. Taylor Smith, Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq., and Edward S. Fisher, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Patrick L. Harner, and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of past performance is denied where the record reflects that the agency's evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and reasonable. DECISION R4 Integration, Inc., of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, protests the award of a contract to iAccess Technologies, Inc., of Santa Ana, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8625-16-R-6601, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the modification of avionics systems on 172 C-130H aircraft.  R4 challenges the agency's evaluation of its past performance.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 7, 2016, for the Avionics Modernization Program Increment 1 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out and Mode Select (S) Enhanced Surveillance modification of 172 C-130H aircraft.  The solicitation contemplates the award of a single contract with work to be performed on fixed-price and cost-reimbursable bases, for the design, integration, and testing of four trial kits necessary to implement the ADS-B Out and Mode S avionics modifications on several C-130H variants.  The selected contractor will also be required to produce an additional 168 kits(for a total of 172 kits), and provide the delivery, training, technical support, and initial spares required to support the government-managed modification installations on the C-130H aircraft.  RFP, attach. 1, at 5.  These modifications are necessary to meet the Federal Aviation Administration mandate requiring ADS-B Out capability, and the European Union mandate requiring Mode S Enhanced Surveillance, by January 1, 2020, and June 7, 2020, respectively.  Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts (COSF) at 2. The RFP established that the award would be made on a best-value basis considering the following factors:  technical; past performance; and price/cost.  RFP amend. 0005 § M, at 12.  The technical factor was further divided into three subfactors:  technical compliance; production; and program management.  Id. Each subfactor under the technical factor was to be rated on a pass/fail basis, and any unsatisfactory evaluation would exclude the offeror from consideration.  Id.  The RFP also included a description of the basis for evaluation and "measures of merit."  Id. at 12-13.  By way of example, with respect to subfactor 1A, technical compliance, the RFP provided for an evaluation of an offeror's system specification and modified airworthiness certification.  Id. at 12.  Under this subfactor, the solicitation identified three measures of merit under each technical subfactor.  Id. at 12-13.  The first considered the degree to which an offeror's proposal reflected "a comprehensive system specification."  Id. at 12.  Among technically acceptable proposals, the best overall value was to be determined based on a tradeoff between past performance and price/cost, with past performance being significantly more important than price/cost.  Id. at 11. As relevant to this decision, RFP, section M, paragraph 2.6 defined the agency's past performance evaluation criteria.  According to this section, an offeror's past performance record was to be evaluated for recency (performed within three years of the date of issuance of the solicitation), relevance, and quality (how well the offeror performed on its prior contracts).[2]  RFP amend.