Military Freefall Solutions, Inc. (M00681-24-Q-0003)

B-422300 Mar 19, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Military Freefall Solutions, Inc. (MFS), a small business of Coronado, California, protests the award of a contract to Skydive Elsinore, Inc. (Elsinore), a small business of Lake Elsinore, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. M00681-24-Q-0003, issued by the United States Marine Corps for high-altitude, high-opening (HAHO) progression and sustainment training support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's technical quotation and the best-value determination. 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: Military Freefall Solutions, Inc. File: B-422300 Date: March 19, 2024 James M. White, Esq., Marshall & White, PC, for the protester. Erin L. Felix, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for Skydive Elsinore, Inc., the intervenor. Christopher B. Erly, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical quotation is denied where the protest allegations are not supported by the record, and the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Military Freefall Solutions, Inc. (MFS), a small business of Coronado, California, protests the award of a contract to Skydive Elsinore, Inc. (Elsinore), a small business of Lake Elsinore, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. M00681-24-Q-0003, issued by the United States Marine Corps for high-altitude, high-opening (HAHO) progression and sustainment training support services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical quotation and the best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 7, 2023, the agency issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside using the commercial acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, and the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR subpart 13.5. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 1, 18. The RFQ contemplated the award of a single fixed‑price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract with a 5‑year ordering period. Id. at 18, 42. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the responsible vendor whose quotation is found to be most advantageous to the government, considering technical approach, price, and past performance. Id. at 17. The solicitation further provided that the evaluation would proceed in four steps: (1) responsibility determination; (2) evaluation of technical approach; (3) ranking of technically acceptable quotations by price from the lowest to highest; and (4) evaluation of past performance for the remaining quotations. Id. at 19. The solicitation informed vendors that technical approach and past performance would be evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable, and price would be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Id. at 18‑19. The solicitation sought a contractor to provide support for advanced training in HAHO- and high‑altitude, low‑opening (HALO)-configured parachute operations. Id. at 6‑7. Under the technical approach factor, vendors were directed to detail how the services required in the performance work statement (PWS) would be provided, specifically, “how the contractor will address the requirements in [s]ection[s] 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and the [p]erformance [r]equirements of [s]ection 5.0” of the PWS. Id. at 17. To be rated as technically acceptable, a quotation was required to meet the minimum requirements by demonstrating services comparable to those in sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 of the PWS. Id. at 18. As relevant here, PWS section 4.1 required the contractor to provide an aircraft as follows: 4.1 Aircraft. The contractor shall provide an aircraft capable of HALO configured parachute operations at an altitude of at least 5,500 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) utilizing a rear ramp exit. The contractor shall provide an aircraft capable of HAHO configured parachute operations at an altitude of 14,000 [feet AGL] utilizing a rear ramp exit. This aircraft must be an approved Air Mobility Command aircraft . . ., which is authorized to conduct operations with [Department of Defense] personnel. The aircraft must be capable of supporting nine (9) combat loaded Marines, two (2) Jumpmasters, and two (2) Oxygen Containers simultaneously. Id. at 7. In addition, sections 4.2 and 4.4 of the PWS required the contractor to provide “the use of their own airfield immediately adjacent to a Zone Availability Reports . . . approved drop zone,” as well as a secure facility of at least 2,000 square feet adjacent to the airfield. Id.