2022 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 89

2022 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 89

Opinion

DECISION

LOGMET LLC, of Round Rock, Texas, challenges the terms of the solicitation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4897-22-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for flight operations training and F-15 aircraft maintenance to support the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. The protester argues that the agency improperly bundled two requirements and that several solicitation provisions are unduly restrictive of competition. [*2] 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation, issued on January 27, 2022, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract for one base year and four option years. Agency Report (AR), Tab 32, RFP at 1, 3-6 ¹ ; AR, Tab 2, Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1-2. The Air Force provides training support to the RSAF through a Foreign Military Sales program known as Peace Carvin. MOL at 1. The Air Force describes Peace Carvin as a program that ensures "a strong U.S. relationship with Singapore, a critical partner in the region, while helping Singapore project airpower into the next generation." AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. Generally, the solicitation seeks a contractor to provide aircraft maintenance and flight operations training to RSAF personnel on the F-15 Eagle aircraft operated by the U.S. Air Force and the F-15 variant (F-15SG) operated by the RSAF. Id. at 1-2; RFP at 100.

The agency states that the RSAF Aircraft Operations and Maintenance Support contract, awarded in 2018, is currently [*3]  in its third iteration. COS at 3-4. The first iteration of the contract was issued in 2008 as a competitive set-aside under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) Business Development program. ² COS at 2-3. The current solicitation seeks to award the fourth iteration of the contract. ³ Id. at 4.

The RFP advised offerors that award would be made using a best-value tradeoff process based on the following four evaluation factors: technical, past performance, small business participation, and price. RFP at 88-93. Proposals would first be evaluated for technical acceptability [*4]  based on three technical subfactors (recruitment/retention, quality management, and prerequisite documentation), which would be assessed on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. at 88-90. For those proposals found to be technically acceptable (and to have an acceptable small business participation submission), tradeoffs could be made between past performance and price, with past performance being significantly more important than price. Id.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.