SOFIS-TRG II, LLC (FA4890-25-C-0003)

B-423667 Sep 16, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SOFIS-TRG, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to MilTrain JV II, LLC, of North Las Vegas, Nevada, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-23-R-0065, issued by the Department of the Air Force for training services for the MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably assigned the proposals the same performance confidence assessment rating under the past performance factor and that the agency conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis. 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: SOFIS-TRG, LLC File: B-423667 Date: September 16, 2025 Shomari B. Wade, Esq., Timothy M. McLister, Esq., Christopher M. O'Brien, Esq., Jordan N. Malone, Esq., and Olivia C. Bellini, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., and Jacob D. Noe, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for MilTrain JV II, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Hector Rivera-Hernandez, Esq., and W. Jacob Worthan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency improperly equalized the past performance confidence assessment ratings of the proposals of the protester and awardee is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with procurement law and regulation. 2. Allegation that the agency conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where, after the source selection authority considered proposal differences under the past performance factor, he determined that neither proposal was superior under the factor and that payment of a price premium for the protester's higher priced proposal was therefore not in the agency's best interest. DECISION SOFIS-TRG, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to MilTrain JV II, LLC, of North Las Vegas, Nevada, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-23-R-0065, issued by the Department of the Air Force for training services for the MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably assigned the proposals the same performance confidence assessment rating under the past performance factor and that the agency conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation part 12 and part 15, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 60-day phase in period, a 10-month base period, and four 1-year option periods. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering three factors: technical (including facility security clearance), past performance, and price. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Conformed RFP at 46, 53. If an offeror did not possess the required facility clearance at the time of proposal submission, the proposal would be deemed ineligible for award and would not be further evaluated. Id. at 62. The technical factor was to be evaluated on an acceptable/ unacceptable basis, and only those proposals rated as acceptable for the factor would be evaluated under the past performance factor. Only those proposals evaluated as substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, or neutral confidence under the past performance factor would be evaluated under price. Id. at 63. The past performance factor was significantly more important than the technical factor and price. Id. at 61. At issue in this protest is the agency's evaluation of proposals under the past performance factor. The RFP required offerors to submit a maximum of three past performance references. Id. at 57. The Air Force would evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of an offeror's past performance and assign an overall confidence assessment rating. Id. at 66. A past performance reference was recent if it was for a contract with a minimum of 6 months of performance during the 5 years preceding the date of issuance of the solicitation. Id. The agency would evaluate the relevancy of the offeror's recent past performance references, assigning each a rating of very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant. Id. at 66-67. The Air Force would assess the quality of the offeror's performance of the references using contractor performance assessment report system reports or past performance questionnaires. Id. at 67.