United Aeronautical Corporation

B-417560 Aug 07, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights United Aeronautical Corporation (UAC), a small business of North Hollywood, California, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8504-19-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for the demilitarization and retrofitting of seven HC-130H aircraft with aerial retardant delivery systems (RDS). The protester contends that the solicitation lacks critical information and does not afford offerors the opportunity to prepare intelligent and responsive proposals and compete on an equal basis. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  United Aeronautical Corporation File:  B-417560 Date:  August 7, 2019 Jonathan R. Hickman, Esq., Esquire Corporate Services, L.C., for the protester. Colonel C. Taylor Smith and Lieutenant Colonel Byron Shibata, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the solicitation does not provide adequate information to allow offerors to prepare a responsive proposal is denied where the solicitation provides adequate information for offerors to compete intelligently and on an equal basis. DECISION United Aeronautical Corporation (UAC), a small business of North Hollywood, California, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8504-19-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for the demilitarization and retrofitting of seven HC-130H aircraft with aerial retardant delivery systems (RDS).  The protester contends that the solicitation lacks critical information and does not afford offerors the opportunity to prepare intelligent and responsive proposals and compete on an equal basis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014, as amended by the John S. McCain NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019, authorizes the Air Force to demilitarize and retrofit seven HC-130H aircraft with RDS systems for transfer from the U.S. Coast Guard to the State of California for firefighting operations.[1]  The RDS system will be integrated into the HC-130H aircraft to drop fire retardant in a continuous and consistent pattern at the selected coverage level.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2.  The HC‑130H aircraft operated by the Coast Guard is a multi-role aircraft that can perform missions such as search and rescue, cargo and passenger transportation, and oil-pollution control, and is a variant of the C-130 cargo aircraft.  MOL at 1 n.1.  Although operated by the Coast Guard, since October 2011, the Air Force has performed routine maintenance on the HC-130 aircraft at the Air Logistics Complex at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 29, Decl. of Source Selection Evaluation Board Chair, at 1.  In addition, as relevant to this protest, for over a decade, the government has used the modular airborne fire-fighting system (MAFFS) to deliver fire retardant out of the left paratroop door of a C-130 aircraft.  AR, Tab 30, Decl. of C-130 System Engineer, at 1.  The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the C-130 has collected flight data recorded during C-130 missions, which have employed the MAFFS delivery system.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 9.    The agency conducted two prior procurements to fulfill this requirement, however, neither resulted in the performance of a contract.  COS at 3.  On March 29, 2019, the Air Force issued the current solicitation, which anticipates the award of a hybrid fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract with a combined period of performance of 27 months for one trial kit/install, one verification kit/install, and five production kits/installs.  AR, Tab 4, RFP, at 64-65; Tab 17, Statement of Work (SOW), at 9-10.  The RFP advises offerors that proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the following three factors:  (1) technical, (2) small business participation, and (3) cost/price.  RFP at 69-70.  The technical factor has three subfactors, all of which are of equal importance:  (1) integrated master schedule, (2) critical design factors, and (3) installation facilities.  Id.  The small business participation factor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id. at 70.  The RFP states that the technical factor will be significantly more important than the cost/price factor in the source selection, and that “[a]ward will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation.”  Id.