Flight Support, Inc.

B-417637.2 Oct 03, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Flight Support, Inc. (FSI) of Newport News, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-18-R-0009, issued by the Department of the Navy for high-endurance electronic warfare jet commercial air services in connection with various training requirements. FSI argues that the RFP's corporate experience and past performance requirements are unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Flight Support, Inc. File:  B-417637.2 Date:  October 3, 2019 Daniel Weckstein, Esq., Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq., and Vania Ratliff, Esq., Vandeventer Black LLP, for the protester. J. Alex Ward, Esq., W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., R. Locke Bell, Esq., and Alissandra D. Young, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the intervenor. Michael T. Genchi, Esq., Robin Ray Coll, Esq., Jason Nelson, Esq., Stephanie Polk, Esq., and Karissa Johnson, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 Protest challenging solicitation’s evaluation scheme as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where agency provides rational explanation for its requirements and demonstrates that they reasonably relate to the agency’s actual needs. DECISION Flight Support, Inc. (FSI) of Newport News, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-18-R-0009, issued by the Department of the Navy for high-endurance electronic warfare jet commercial air services in connection with various training requirements.  FSI argues that the RFP’s corporate experience and past performance requirements are unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. The RFP seeks proposals to obtain contractor-owned, contractor-operated aircraft and personnel to support training for shipboard and aircraft weapons systems operators and aircrews.  In effect, the successful offeror will operate aircraft to simulate a wide variety of airborne threats in order to train, test and evaluate shipboard and aircraft squadron weapons systems operators and aircrews about how to counter potential enemy electronic warfare efforts.  RFP at 9.[1]  The RFP includes four evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  corporate experience, technical, past performance, and price.  The RFP further provided that all non-price considerations together were deemed significantly more important than price.  RFP at 112.  FSI’s protest concerns the solicitation’s evaluation criteria relating to corporate experience and past performance. The RFP provides that offerors will be evaluated for corporate experience based on past performance examples found to be recent and relevant.  RFP at 113.  The RFP specifically advises offerors that only the corporate experience of the legal entity submitting the proposal (or a team member) will be considered, and advises that the experience of an offeror’s individual personnel will not be considered.  Id.  Similarly, for past performance, the RFP states that the agency will consider an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance examples in evaluating past performance.  RFP at 114. For purposes of recency, the RFP provides that recent contracts are those performed within 5 years of the date the RFP was issued.  RFP at 117.  For purposes of relevancy, the RFP provides that contracts will be deemed “very relevant” if they involved operating jet aircraft, including obtaining air worthiness certificates, over water 100 nautical miles from land in support of military operations, and also either required performance of electronic warfare operations, or performance of electronic warfare integration, including aircraft modifications, in support of military operations, and have a threshold value of at least $25 million.  RFP at 118.  The RFP deems contracts “somewhat relevant” if they involved either operating aircraft, including obtaining airworthiness certificates, in support of military operations and also were valued at $1.8 million or more; or required performance of either electronic warfare operations, or electronic warfare integration, including aircraft modifications, in support of military operations, and were valued at $1.8 million or more.  Id. FSI argues that these requirements are unduly restrictive of competition.  According to the protester, only an incumbent contractor can have its corporate experience/past performance examples deemed “very relevant” because only those firms have the necessary requisite experience.  The protester therefore suggests that the solicitation is a de-facto sole-source acquisition, because, as a practical matter, only the incumbent contractors will be able to demonstrate the corporate experience/past performance required to achieve the highest possible rating under the definitions found in t...