Quadrant Training Solutions, JV (FA8621-23-R-6276)

B-422339 May 07, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Quadrant Training Solutions, JV, a small business of Oviedo, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to Aviation Training Consulting, LLC, a small business of Saint Altus, Oklahoma, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8621-23-R-6276, issued by the Department of the Air Force for aircrew instruction and courseware development services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably failed to consider the risk inherent in the awardee's low price during the evaluation of proposals and in the best-value tradeoff analysis. We dismiss the protest in part and deny the protest in part. 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: Quadrant Training Solutions, JV File: B-422339 Date: May 7, 2024 J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Beth V. McMahon, Esq., and Jacob D. Noe, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for the protester. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for Aviation Training Consulting, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Christine Piper, Siobhan K. Donahue, Esq., and Michael V. Porter, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 that agency unreasonably failed to consider the performance risk of the awardee’s low price is dismissed for failure to state a valid basis of protest where the fixed-price solicitation did not contemplate a price realism evaluation. DECISION Quadrant Training Solutions, JV, a small business of Oviedo, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to Aviation Training Consulting, LLC, a small business of Saint Altus, Oklahoma, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8621-23-R-6276, issued by the Department of the Air Force for aircrew instruction and courseware development services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably failed to consider the risk inherent in the awardee’s low price during the evaluation of proposals and in the best-value tradeoff analysis. We dismiss the protest in part and deny the protest in part. BACKGROUND On December 14, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation as a small business set‑aside to firms holding the agency’s training system acquisition III multiple‑award, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3; Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, FOPR Letter at 1.[1] The FOPR sought proposals for a training solution that provides courseware, instruction, and training aids to professional military aviators at Kirkland Air Force Base, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Joint Base Andrews, and Moody Air Force Base. COS at 2; see generally, AR, Tab 31, FOPR Revision 3, Performance Work Statement (PWS). The solicitation contemplated issuance of a fixed-price task order for a 4-month transition period, one base year, four 1-year option periods, and one 6‑month extension of service option period. AR, Tab 6, FOPR Letter at 2. The task order competition was conducted using the fair opportunity ordering procedures at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505(b)(1). AR, Tab 28, Initial FOPR, Evaluation Factors at 135. The FOPR advised that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government considering the following three factors: (1) technical experience; (2) technical capability; and (3) price. Id. Proposals would first be evaluated under the technical experience factor on a pass/fail basis, where only those proposals rated acceptable would be further evaluated under the remaining factors. Id. at 135, 137. Under the technical capability factor, the agency would assess a combined technical/risk rating based on an evaluation under three subfactors: (1) training management; (2) aircrew instruction; and (3) courseware development.[2] Id. at 137‑138. The solicitation then contemplated a tradeoff between the technical capability and price factors, where technical capability would be significantly more important than price. Id. at 135. For technical capability, offerors were instructed to submit the “processes for courseware development, student instruction, and student service operations demonstrating [their] understanding of and ability to perform contract requirements.” AR, Tab 32, FOPR Revision 4, Instructions to Offerors at 14. The solicitation advised that the agency would consider specific areas under each technical capability subfactor and “assign a strength for any of the . . .