TriStar Aerospace, Inc. (N00421-20-R-0094)

B-419093 Dec 11, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TriStar Aerospace LLC, of Brunswick, Maine, protests the determination of the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, that its proposal was late and therefore ineligible for consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042120R0094 for air-to-air refueling services. The protester contends that it submitted its proposal on time, and a late filing by its proposed subcontractor should not have rendered TriStar's entire proposal late. 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:  TriStar Aerospace LLC File:  B-419093 Date:  December 11, 2020 Stephen R. Snodgrass, Esq., and Charles A. Weiss, Esq., Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, for the protester. Travis D. Van Ort, Esq., Kristina M. Hogan, Esq., Thomas J. Florip, Esq., and Stephanie A. Polk, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably rejected the protester’s proposal as late is denied where the record shows that, although a portion of the proposal was received on time, information necessary for the agency to evaluate the proposal was submitted late; the agency’s rejection of the proposal was thus reasonable. DECISION TriStar Aerospace LLC, of Brunswick, Maine, protests the determination of the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, that its proposal was late and therefore ineligible for consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042120R0094 for air-to-air refueling services.  The protester contends that it submitted its proposal on time, and a late filing by its proposed subcontractor should not have rendered TriStar’s entire proposal late. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Department of the Navy’s fleet and other customers require air-to-air refueling services for multiple aircraft types.  This acquisition, in support of the Naval Air Systems Command Contracted Air Service Program, was to provide contractor owned, operated, and maintained aerial refueling aircraft, personnel, and equipment to satisfy fleet training, operational, test and evaluation, and foreign military sales requirements.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, RFP amend. 0005, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The agency previously conducted a competition for these services; that competition, conducted as a small business set-aside, resulted in the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to TriStar in April 2019.  The incumbent contractor filed a protest at GAO challenging TriStar’s award.  The agency took corrective action, during which it terminated the award to TriStar and changed the procurement from a small business set-aside with the award of a single IDIQ contract to an unrestricted competition for the award of multiple IDIQ contracts.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5. This solicitation sought proposals for the award of up to two fixed-price IDIQ contracts with a 4-year, 364 day base ordering period and a 4-year, 364 day option period.  AR, Tab 14, Conformed RFP sections A-M at 2, 18.  The maximum value over the life of the IDIQ contract is estimated to be $[DELETED].  COS/MOL at 5.  Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering three factors:  technical, corporate experience, and cost/price.  AR, Tab 14, Conformed RFP sections A-M at 80.  The technical factor was more important than the corporate experience factor, both of which are more important than cost/price.  Id.  Together, the technical and corporate experience factors are significantly more important than cost/price.  Id.  The technical factor contained five elements:  performance, capability establishment, airworthiness, aircraft availability, and small business management.  Id. at 68-74.  As relevant to this protest, under the performance element, the RFP required an offeror to demonstrate how its aircraft met the eight performance areas of PWS ¶ 3.1.[1]  AR, Tab 14, Conformed RFP Sections A-M at 69.  The RFP informed offerors that the Navy would evaluate each proposal to determine the offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements.  The agency would assess a technical proposal’s compliance with the solicitation requirements, as well as the risk associated with the offeror’s approach.  Id.