STAcqMe LLC

B-417128 Feb 25, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights STAcqMe, LLC, a small business of Goodyear, Arizona, protests the award of a contract to Crew Training International, Inc. (CTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-8-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for contract aircrew training and courseware development (CAT/CWD) services. STAcqMe challenges the agency's evaluation of CTI's proposal under the past performance factor. 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:  STAcqMe LLC File:  B-417128 Date:  February 25, 2019 Brett W. Johnson, Esq., Colin P. Ahler, Esq., and Derek Flint, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP, for the protester. J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., and Beth C. McMahon, Esq., ReavesColey, PLLC, for Crew Training International, Inc., the intervenor. Colonel C. Taylor Smith, Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Captain Jacquelyn C. Fiorello, and Kevin P. Stiens, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Evan C. Williams, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal under the past performance evaluation factor is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria when information requirements provided in the solicitation’s proposal preparation instructions are not evaluation criteria and do not establish minimum evaluation standards. DECISION STAcqMe, LLC, a small business of Goodyear, Arizona, protests the award of a contract to Crew Training International, Inc. (CTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-8-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for contract aircrew training and courseware development (CAT/CWD) services.[1]  STAcqMe challenges the agency’s evaluation of CTI’s proposal under the past performance factor. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 8, 2018, the agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation parts 12 and 15, for CAT/CWD services to support the MQ-9 Reaper for the Department of the Air Force. [2]  AR, Tab 4, RFP at 1, 151, 179; COS at 2-3.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with a base year (including phase-in) and four 1‑year option periods.[3]  RFP at 4-115, 151; AR, Tab 5, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3.  Under the PWS, the contractor is to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and all other items and services to perform and support MQ-9 CAT/CWD, to include instrument refresher course personnel in support of operations at multiple locations.  PWS at 3; COS at 2.  With respect to CAT, the PWS described various types of academic, training device, and live flying instruction that the contractor would be required to conduct.  PWS at 3.  For the CWD requirement, the PWS required contractor personnel to produce, update, and revise MQ-9 aircrew and operational support courseware to support academic and training device instruction, and flight phases of the training system covered under the contract.  Id. at 6. The RFP provided that award would be made using the tradeoff process to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government, considering the following four evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical capability; (2) risk; (3) past performance; and (4) price.  RFP at 179-180.  The technical capability factor was comprised of the following three subfactors:  (A) manpower workload analysis, training workload management plan, and recruitment, training and retention plan; (B) organizational structure and roles, responsibilities and communications, transition plan, courseware personnel and instructor training and certification plan; and (C) learning management system and contractor furnished equipment.[4]  Id. at 180.  The RFP further stated that “[t]he greater the equality of technical proposals the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.”  Id. As relevant to this protest, under the past performance factor, the RFP established that the agency would assign one of the following overall performance confidence ratings, based upon an evaluation of the offeror’s past performance data:  substantial, satisfactory, neutral, limited, or no confidence.  Id. at 184-186.  Past performance was to be evaluated by examining a minimum of three and a maximum of six past performance references determined by the agency to be the most recent and relevant to the instant requirement.  Id.