Leading Edge Aviation Services, Inc. (140D8020R0010)

B-419427 Feb 25, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Leading Edge Aviation Services, Inc., a small business of Missoula, Montana, protests the award of a contract to Bighorn Airways, Inc., of Sheridan, Wyoming, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140D8020R0010 issued by the Department of the Interior for smokejumper flight services for the Bureau of Land Management. The protester alleges that the agency erred in evaluating proposals and in its best-value tradeoff decision. 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:  Leading Edge Aviation Services, Inc. File:  B-419427 Date:  February 25, 2021 Rachel H. Parken, Esq., Milodragovich, Dale & Steinbrenner, PC, for the protester. Sheryl L. Rakestraw, Esq., Dana-Marie Akpan, Esq., and Alexander W. Fichtel, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 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. DECISION   Leading Edge Aviation Services, Inc., a small business of Missoula, Montana, protests the award of a contract to Bighorn Airways, Inc., of Sheridan, Wyoming, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140D8020R0010 issued by the Department of the Interior for smokejumper flight services for the Bureau of Land Management.  The protester alleges that the agency erred in evaluating proposals and in its best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 18, 2020, the agency issued the RFP seeking smokejumper flight services using fixed-wing aircraft to support the agency’s firefighting mission during the annual fire season.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFP contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and four 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 3, Tab 1, RFP at 4.  The solicitation provided that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between four evaluation factors:  (1) technical capability; (2) organizational safety; (3) past performance; and (4) price.  Id. at 63.  The RFP also noted that all non-price factors were approximately equal in importance, but, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. Relevant to this protest, the solicitation provided that proposed aircraft must meet certain minimum technical requirements.  RFP at 63.  Of the aircraft meeting the minimum requirements, the agency would evaluate an aircraft’s technical capability by considering:  the number of insured passenger seats; published flight manual airspeeds; payload amounts; and any other beneficial enhancements made to the aircraft, such as enhanced internal cargo volume with the ability to rapidly be reconfigured.  Id.  The solicitation provided “the greater an aircraft’s capability, the better the rating it will receive.”  Id. Concerning organizational safety, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate any aircraft accidents and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) violations.  The RFP also noted that a more favorable rating would be assigned for offerors with an accident rate less than the agency 5-year average, few to no FAA violations, and that addressed all the components of the RFP’s safety management system questionnaire.  RFP at 52, 63.  The RFP also noted that offerors providing an accident prevention action plan, or evidence of actions taken to prevent future accidents, may receive a more favorable evaluation.  Id. at 63. The agency received two proposals,[1] one from the protester and one from Bighorn Airways.  COS at 1.  The agency evaluated the proposals[2] as follows:   Leading Edge Bighorn Airways TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Satisfactory Very Good ORGANIZATIONAL SAFETY Very Good Exceptional PAST PERFORMANCE       Relevance Highly Relevant Highly Relevant   Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Substantial Confidence PRICE $4,365,000 $5,735,310   AR, exh. 14, Tab 2, Award Summary at 10. While Bighorn’s price was higher than Leading Edge’s price, the agency concluded that Bighorn represented the best value to the government because Bighorn was superior under all non-price factors.  Id.