Highland Engineering, Inc. (FA8534-24-R-0003)

B-424183,B-424183.2 Apr 06, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Highland Engineering, Inc., a small business of Howell, Michigan, protests the award of a contract to SelectTech Services Corporation, a small business of Dayton, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8534-24-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for the sustainment of air transportable galley and lavatory (ATGL) units. The protester challenges the agency's past performance evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision. 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: Highland Engineering, Inc. File: B-424183; B-424183.2 Date: April 6, 2026 Frank S. Murray, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for the protester. Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq., and Celeste M. Friel, Esq., Taft Stettinus & Hollister LLP, for SelectTech Services Corporation, the intervenor. Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Walker J. Gray, Esq., Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., James M. Peeler, Esq., and Erik T. Fuqua, 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 1. Protest challenging evaluation of past performance is denied where the agency's consideration of the relevance of the offerors' respective past performance was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protest challenging agency's best‑value tradeoff decision is denied where the record shows the tradeoff was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION Highland Engineering, Inc., a small business of Howell, Michigan, protests the award of a contract to SelectTech Services Corporation, a small business of Dayton, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8534-24-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for the sustainment of air transportable galley and lavatory (ATGL) units. The protester challenges the agency's past performance evaluation and best‑value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 9, 2024, the Air Force issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking proposals to provide sustainment services for the agency's fleet of ATGL units, including program engineering support, overhaul, repair, and material management. Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, RFP amend. 6 at 3; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 3. The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery requirements contract, which would include fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract line items, with a 3‑year base period and seven 1‑year option periods. AR, Tab 9, RFP amend. 6 at 3‑32. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government considering past performance and cost/price. AR, Tab 11, RFP Sections L & M at 33.[1] In the tradeoff, past performance would be considered significantly more important than cost/price. As relevant here, offerors were advised that the agency might make “award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror” if the agency “reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.” Id. For past performance, the solicitation instructed offerors to use the agency's past performance information tool to submit present and past performance information for the offeror. Id. at 4‑5. Specifically, each offeror (including any joint venture members or proposed critical subcontractors[2]) was to provide information about two past performance efforts that were active or completed within the past five years from the issuance of the RFP, including all available contractor performance assessment reporting system reports (CPARs) for those efforts. Id. at 5. Submitted past performance efforts could include work performed for the federal government, foreign governments, state and local governments, or commercial customers. Id. The agency would evaluate past performance by assessing the offeror's ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past work record. Id. at 34.