The Mission Essential Group, LLC (FA564124R0004)

B-422698.2 Jan 08, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Mission Essential Group, LLC (Mission Essential), of New Albany, Ohio, protests the terms of fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA564124R0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for pilot augmentation support services in Europe and Africa. The protester contends that the solicitation improperly provides for award of a task order on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. The protester also contends that numerous solicitation terms are improper and unduly restrictive of competition. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: The Mission Essential Group, LLC File: B-422698.2 Date: January 8, 2025 Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Roee Talmor, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Josephine R. Farinelli, Esq., W. Trent Fox, Esq., and David J. Dusseau, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall‑McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that a solicitation improperly provides for award on a lowest‑price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis is sustained where the agency unreasonably determined that the statutory and regulatory requirements for use of LPTA award criteria were satisfied. DECISION The Mission Essential Group, LLC (Mission Essential), of New Albany, Ohio, protests the terms of fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA564124R0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for pilot augmentation support services in Europe and Africa. The protester contends that the solicitation improperly provides for award of a task order on a lowest‑price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. The protester also contends that numerous solicitation terms are improper and unduly restrictive of competition. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2024, the agency issued the FOPR to holders of the Air Force’s Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS V) contract, a multiple‑award, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 28, FOPR at 2. The solicitation, which was issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, is a “follow-on” task order issued under the A&AS IV IDIQ contract. The FOPR seeks a contractor to provide “in‑garrison functional support services to the programs, projects, and processes employed by [U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa (USAFE‑AFAFRICA)] to meet existing and future contingency requirements,” including support for USAFE‑AFAFRICA headquarters and subordinate units’ flying squadrons, and support for non‑flying duties in combat and rescue squadrons, which have customarily used pilots and weapons officers to perform non‑flying duties. Id. at 7. The FOPR contemplates the issuance of a task order of primarily fixed‑price contract line item numbers (CLINs) for a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods.[2] Id. at 2. Award is to be made on an LPTA basis with the technical factor consisting of two subfactors: (1) past technical experience and (2) a staffing plan.[3] Id. at 3, 87‑89. To receive a rating of acceptable for the past technical experience subfactor, an offeror must submit no more than two work samples with supporting documentation that “clearly demonstrate” the offeror has past technical experience “performing work similar to that listed within paragraphs 3.1 and 3.4 of the [performance work statement (PWS)], within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of the FOPR for a minimum of one (1) continuous year” for each work sample. Id. at 89. Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.4 of the PWS detail 46 pages of performance requirements for management, operational, and professional support services (paragraph 3.1) and administrative services (paragraph 3.4). Id. at 18‑64. For the staffing subfactor, the FOPR instructs offerors to “describe their proposed approach for accomplishing the tasks within paragraphs 3.1 and 3.4 of the PWS to a level that shows a clear understanding of the requirements” and not to restate the PWS. Id. at 86. The solicitation provides that offerors “shall describe their unique plan for accomplishing the tasks.” Id. The Air Force will determine a proposal to be technically acceptable when the proposed staffing plan outlines the offeror’s “unique planned approach” for performing the tasks within PWS paragraphs 3.1 and 3.4 that shows “a clear understanding of the requirements, identifies the roles and responsibilities for each proposed team member, and provides rationale for any deviations taken to the Government provided estimated staffing, if required.” Id. at 89. The Air Force issued amendment 1 to the solicitation on June 18 answering questions about the FOPR that included additional information about proposal evaluations. AR, Tab 33, FOPR amend. 1 at 76.