Aviation Training Consulting, LLC

B-417151,B-417151.2,B-417151.3 Mar 11, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Aviation Training Consulting, LLC (ATC), of Altus, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to Avix-BGI Joint Venture, LLC (AB), of Yorktown, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-18-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for aircrew training and courseware development services. ATC argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, failed to engage in discussions, and unreasonably made award to AB. 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:  Aviation Training Consulting, LLC File:  B-417151; B-417151.2; B-417151.3 Date:  March 11, 2019 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Shane J. McCall, Esq., Haley E. Claxton, Esq., and Robert D. Kampen, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., and Beth V. McMahon, Esq., Reaves Coley, PLLC, for Avix-BGI Joint Venture, LLC, an intervenor. Colonel C. Taylor Smith, Lieutenant Colonel Damund Williams, and Kevin P. Stiens, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that agency improperly awarded a contract to a concern owned by a federal government employee is denied where record shows individual in question is a state government employee, not a federal government employee. 2.  Where solicitation contemplated award without discussions, there is no basis to object to an agency’s award on the basis of initial proposals. 3.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where record shows that agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION Aviation Training Consulting, LLC (ATC), of Altus, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to Avix-BGI Joint Venture, LLC (AB), of Yorktown, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-18-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for aircrew training and courseware development services.  ATC argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, failed to engage in discussions, and unreasonably made award to AB.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a fixed-price contract to perform the solicited requirements for a 2-month phase-in period, a base year, and four 1-year option periods.[1]  RFP at 5-61.  Firms were advised that proposals would be evaluated considering price, and several non-price considerations.  The evaluation factors were:  technical capability (deemed most important and significantly more important than the remaining two factors); risk (deemed second in importance) and price (deemed the least important, but of increasing importance as proposals were deemed relatively equal under the non-price factors).[2]  RFP at 128.  Firms also were advised that the agency intended to make award based on initial proposals without conducting discussions, but the RFP reserved to the government the right to engage in discussions should they be determined to be in the government’s best interests.  Id.  In terms of price, the RFP advised offerors that prices would be evaluated for reasonableness, realism and balance.  Id. at 133-134. In response to the solicitation, the agency received a number of proposals, including those of the protester and the awardee.  The agency evaluated the proposals and, as is pertinent to this decision, assigned the ATC proposal a rating of unacceptable/high risk under the human resources management subfactor (the most important of the subfactors), and marginal/moderate risk ratings under the remaining two subfactors.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 16, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, at 13.  In assigning it these ratings, the agency identified three deficiencies in the ATC proposal under the human resources management subfactor, one deficiency under the information technology systems and approach subfactor, and a total of 16 weaknesses among the three subfactors.  Id. at 13-24.  In comparison, the agency assigned acceptable/low risk ratings to the AB proposal under each of the three subfactors, identified no weaknesses or deficiencies, and found that AB’s proposal met the agency’s requirements.  Id. at 77-86.  The agency’s evaluators concluded that, because of the number and severity of deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the ATC proposal (along with a number of price concerns identified by the agency, but not relevant to this decision), ATC’s proposal would require a substantial rewrite, and would not be included in any competitive range that might be established.  AR, exh.