Resicum International, LLC (FA3002-22-R-0025)

B-421383 Mar 22, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Resicum International LLC, a small business of Warrenton, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3002-22-R-0025 issued by the Department of the Air Force for flight training. Resicum contends that it was improperly eliminated from the competition for failing to meet the solicitation's requirements. 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: Resicum International LLC File: B-421383 Date: March 22, 2023 Heather G. Hornsby, Esq, McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge LLC, for the protester. Colonel Frank Yoon, Danelle M. McGinnis, Esq., and Ryan C. Springer, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester’s proposal and exclusion from the competitive range is denied because the agency’s evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Resicum International LLC, a small business of Warrenton, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3002-22-R-0025 issued by the Department of the Air Force for flight training. Resicum contends that it was improperly eliminated from the competition for failing to meet the solicitation’s requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 23, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, the agency issued a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial services seeking “Introductory Flight Training-Rotary (IFT-R)” instruction. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4a, RFP at 1.[1] The solicitation explained that IFT-R “is the first step in the United States Air Force [USAF] Undergraduate Helicopter Training (UHT)” process, and “provides air, ground, and simulation training to prepare students for follow-on specialized rotary wing flight training.” Id. The solicited effort was to provide “IFT-R initial qualification training (40 hours), instrument familiarization training (10 hours), and simulation (Aircrew Training Device) training (10 hours) for eighty-eight (88) +/- 10 USAF Rotary Wing Pilot candidates per year.” Id. The solicitation contemplated award of a single 10-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract consisting of a 5-year base period, one 3-year option period, and two 1-year option periods. RFP at 3. The IDIQ contract would have a $5,000 minimum guarantee and a maximum value of $110.6 million. Id. at 1. The solicitation provided for use of a best-value tradeoff source selection, and established that the agency would make award to an offeror: (1) “who is deemed responsible”; (2) “whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements”; (3) “whose proposal pass the Gates in paragraph 1.4”; (4) “who is determined to be NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] compliant at their proposed location(s)”; and (5) “who is judged to represent the best value to the Government.” AR, Tab 4e, RFP attach. 4, Evaluation Factors for Award at 1. As relevant here, paragraph 1.4 of the solicitation established a set of “Gates (Go/No-Go)[[2]]” criteria, stating that “[i]n order to be eligible for award and for further evaluation, offerors must demonstrate that their primary flight training location” met the identified gates requirements. AR, Tab 4e, RFP attach. 4, Evaluation Factors for Award at 1-2; see also Tab 4b, RFP attach. 1B, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 12. The solicitation further set forth that if “the Government enters into discussions, the Government will notify any offeror who failed to provide evidence of their ability to meet the primary flight training location requirements that they are eliminated from the competitive range before entering into discussions.” AR, Tab 4e, RFP attach. 4, Evaluation Factors for Award at 2. In addition to the gates go/no-go criteria, the solicitation set forth the following evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; (3) price; and (4) small business participation. AR, Tab 4e, RFP attach. 4, Evaluation Factors for Award at 3-4. The technical and past performance factors were of equal importance, and when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 4. The solicitation instructed offerors to organize their proposals into the following sections: “Initial Evaluation Gates (Go/No‑Go)”; “Volume I Technical”; “Volume II Past Performance”; “Volume III Price”; and “Volume IV Small Business Participation.” AR, Tab 4d, RFP attach. 3, Instructions to Offerors at 4-5.