Aviation Ground Equipment Corporation (N6833519R0105)

B-417711.2,B-417711.3 May 03, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Aviation Ground Equipment Corporation (AGEC), a veteran-owned small business of Melville, New York, challenges the award of a contract to Essex Electro Engineers, Inc., of Schaumberg, Illinois, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68335-19-R-0105 by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for land-based mobile electric power plants (LMEPPs). The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals in numerous respects. 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 Ground Equipment Corporation File:  B-417711.2; B-417711.3 Date:  May 3, 2021 David B. Dixon, Esq., Robert C. Starling, Esq., and Toghrul Shukurlu, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Julie Nichols, Esq., Roeder, Cochran, Phillips, PLLC, for Essex Electro Engineers, Inc., the intervenor. Karin S. Wiechmann, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest arguing that agency improperly allowed awardee to cure a late proposal by providing missing information during discussions is denied.  DECISION Aviation Ground Equipment Corporation (AGEC), a veteran-owned small business of Melville, New York, challenges the award of a contract to Essex Electro Engineers, Inc., of Schaumberg, Illinois, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68335-19-R-0105 by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for land-based mobile electric power plants (LMEPPs).  The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals in numerous respects. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on January 23, 2020, seeking LMEPPs, which are self-contained, diesel-powered, towable generators used to provide electrical power in support of Naval aircraft maintenance.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2.  The RFP was a 100 percent small business set-aside, and contemplated the award of a single fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract.  Id.  The RFP also provided for a best-value tradeoff on the basis of three factors (listed in descending order of importance):  (1) technical,[1] (2) past performance, and (3) price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 83.  The technical factor included three subfactors:  (1) technical approach, (2) logistics, and (3) management.  Id.  Although the RFP established the technical and past performance factors, when combined, as significantly more important than price, the RFP explained that price was an important factor that should not be ignored.  Id.  Further, the RFP noted that as ratings of proposals become more equal with respect to non-price factors, price will become more significant when deciding which offer represents the best value to the government.  Id. Concerning the technical evaluation factor, among other things, the RFP required LMEPPs of solid-state design and capable of 120 kilo-volt-amperes (KVA) continuous output.  AR, Tab 2c, System Specification at 15, 22.  The RFP noted, however, that offerors proposing LMEPPs capable of outputs greater than or equal to 140 KVA may receive additional consideration in their technical ratings.  RFP at 85.  Additionally, during a question and answer period, a prospective offeror asked whether the LMEPPs were required to power the E2-D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, and the agency responded that the proposed LMEPPs will need to power the E2-D for ground maintenance.  RFP at 104.  As to past performance, the RFP provided that past performance would be evaluated for:  (1) recency, (2) relevance, and (3) past performance information.  Id. at 71.  The RFP noted that past performance would receive one of the following relevance ratings:  (1) very relevant, (2) relevant, (3) somewhat relevant, or (4) not relevant.  Id. at 88.  Further, the RFP notes that offerors would receive one of the following performance confidence ratings:  (1) substantial confidence, (2) satisfactory confidence, (3) neutral confidence, (4) limited confidence, or (5) no confidence.  Id.