Erickson Helicopters, Inc. (HTC71120FR044)

B-418981 Oct 22, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Erickson Helicopters, Inc., of Portland, Oregon, protests the issuance of a task order to Construction Helicopters, Inc. d/b/a as CHI Aviation, of Howell, Michigan, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. HTC71120FR044, which was issued by the Department of Defense, U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), for rotary wing casualty evacuation (CASEVAC) and logistic movement support in Yemen. Erickson challenges the agency's evaluation of CHI Aviation's past performance. 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 version has been approved for public release.   Decision Matter of:  Erickson Helicopters, Inc. File:  B-418981 Date:  October 22, 2020 Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Timothy F. Valley, Esq., Lauren R. Brier, Esq., and Anna R. Wright, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. Jennifer S. Zucker, Esq., Danielle K. Muenzfeld, Esq., and Michael Pusateri, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for Construction Helicopters, Inc. d/b/a CHI Aviation, the intervenor. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Jason R. Smith, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s consideration of additional past performance references personally known by the evaluators or identified from government databases beyond the three references that the awardee was required to identify in its proposal is denied where the solicitation specifically reserved the agency’s right to obtain past performance information from any sources available to the government. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the relevancy and quality of the awardee’s past performance is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Erickson Helicopters, Inc., of Portland, Oregon, protests the issuance of a task order to Construction Helicopters, Inc. d/b/a as CHI Aviation, of Howell, Michigan, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. HTC71120FR044, which was issued by the Department of Defense, U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), for rotary wing casualty evacuation (CASEVAC) and logistic movement support in Yemen.  Erickson challenges the agency’s evaluation of CHI Aviation’s past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFTOP, which was issued on May 14, 2020, and subsequently amended one time, was issued to holders of the Worldwide Airlift Services Program – 135 (WASP-135) multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, for CASEVAC, passenger, cargo, and combination passenger and cargo services in and around the country of Yemen and its territorial waters.[1]  The RFTOP contemplated the award of a fixed-price task order with a base year, and four 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFTOP at 1, 5.[2]  Award was to be made on a best‑value basis utilizing the following evaluation factors:  (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price. The solicitation established a multi-step process for making the best‑value selection.  First, the agency was to calculate the total evaluated price of all offerors and rank them in ascending order.  Id. at 5.  Then, the agency would evaluate the proposal calculated to have the lowest total evaluated price for technical acceptability.  Id.  If the lowest‑priced offeror was found to have an acceptable technical proposal, the agency would then evaluate that offeror’s past performance.  Id. at 6.  If the lowest‑priced offeror’s past performance was rated as warranting the highest confidence assessment of substantial, the agency would then evaluate the proposed pricing for balance, fairness, and reasonableness.  Id.  If the lowest‑priced offeror’s prices were determined to be balanced, fair, and reasonable, then award would be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.  Id.  If the lowest-priced offeror (1) was rated unacceptable in its technical capability, (2) did not receive the highest past performance rating of substantial, or (3) was determined to propose pricing that was not fair and reasonable, or if the offeror’s proposal included unbalanced pricing that posed an unacceptable risk to the government, then the agency would evaluate the next lowest‑priced proposal.  Id. Relevant to the issues in this protest, the agency was to evaluate past performance to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the RFTOP’s requirements, considering the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance with supplying services meeting the contract’s requirements.  Id.