TITLE:	Flight Safety International
BNUMBER:	    B-290595
DATE:		    August 2, 2002
**********************************************************************
Flight Safety International, B-290595, August 2, 2002

Decision


Matter of:   Flight Safety International

File:            B-290595

Date:           August 2, 2002

William J. Nugent for the protester.
Maj. Leslea T. Pickle and Maj. Deborah L. Collins, Department of the Air
Force,
for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that solicitation for pilot training is defective because it lacks a
separate contract line item number (CLIN) for the cost of flight simulator
modifications is denied where the agency provided sufficient information in
the solicitation to allow offerors to reasonably use their business judgment
to amortize and recover the costs of such modifications in its CLINs
covering the pilot training.

DECISION

Flight Safety International protests the decision of the Department of the
Air Force to issue request for proposals (RFP) No. F41689-02-R-0008 for
academic and simulator C-21A pilot training without a separate contract line
item number (CLIN) to address the contractor's cost for outfitting its
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Level C configured cockpit flight
simulators with a C-21A configured cockpit.  Flight Safety contends that
this approach places an unreasonable amount of risk on the offerors.

We deny the protest.

A draft RFP for a follow-on contract for C-21A academic and simulator pilot
training was issued on February 12, 2002.  The pilot training included both
classroom and simulator instruction.  The contractor would be required to
conduct training at its own facility using a contractor-furnished flight
simulator with the capability for C-21A configuration.  The contractor would
also be responsible for developing and using computer-aided instruction
software in its classroom presentations and in student self-study.

In response to the draft RFP, on February 26, Flight Safety submitted a
question, in which it stated that a separate CLIN was required to be
included for the simulator modifications required to convert existing
simulators to the current configuration of a C-21A.  The agency held a
pre-solicitation conference on March 19 and 20 with potential offerors.  On
April 4, the agency electronically posted "Industry Day Questions and
Answers," which included an answer to Flight Safety's question, denying
Flight Safety's request and explaining that the offerors were to amortize
the cost of the simulator modifications via student throughput at their own
discretion.  The agency further stated that it expected to see a decrease in
price per student once the simulator modification costs had been recouped.
Agency Report, Tab 6, Industry Day Questions and Answers, Answer 5.

On April 22, the agency issued the RFP, which did not include a separate
CLIN for the required simulator modifications.  The solicitation contained
the estimated annual student load based on historical data.  RFP, Statement
of Work (SOW) ï¿½ 1.1.1.1.  On May 2, Flight Safety again argued that a
separate CLIN for the simulator modifications was required because the
simulator modifications are requested by and are for the sole benefit of the
Air Force.  Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP Questions, at 2.  On May 14, the
agency once again denied the protester's request and stated that the costs
of the simulator modifications were to be recovered in accordance with the
offeror's business judgment.  The agency indicated that historically the
numbers for C-21A student throughput have been stable and there is no
indication that these numbers will decrease anytime in the near future.  To
further assist the prospective offerors, the agency supplied the actual
historical student loads for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.  Agency Report, Tab
9, RFP Questions and Answers at 4.  This timely protest of the agency's
refusal to include a separate CLIN to modify simulators followed.

Risks are inherent in procurements, and an agency may properly impose
substantial risk upon the contractor, even where the risk in question is
financial in nature.  Bean Dredging Corp., B-239952, Oct. 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD
ï¿½ 286 at 3.  There is no legal requirement that a solicitation be drafted so
as to eliminate all performance uncertainties; the mere presence of risk
does not render a solicitation improper.  Braswell Servs. Group, Inc.,
B-278521, Feb. 9, 1998, 98-1 CPD ï¿½ 49 at 3.  Thus, offerors are reasonably
expected to use their professional expertise and business judgment in
anticipating risks and computing their offers.  McDermott Shipyards,
Division of McDermott, Inc., B-237049, Jan. 29, 1990, 90-1 CPD ï¿½ 121 at 7.
In this regard, a procuring agency must provide sufficient information in a
solicitation to enable offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively
equal basis.  Braswell Servs. Group, Inc., supra at 3.

While the protester is correct that the RFP imposes risk on the contractor
by virtue of the uncertainty surrounding the number of pilots that will
receive training each year and whether any option years will be exercised,
these facts alone do not render the RFP defective.  The agency has provided
information to assist prospective offerors in preparing their proposals,
such as the estimated annual student load and the actual student loads from
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.  The agency also notes that historically the
projected student loads have been stable in the last two 5?year contracts.
There is no contention that the agency has other significant information
that it has failed to make available.  Under the circumstances, the agency
provided sufficient information in the solicitation and in response to
questions to enable offerors to prepare their offers intelligently and
without undue risk, and does not expose offerors to excessive financial
risk.[1]  Thus, the agency was not required to create a separate CLIN for
outfitting cockpit flight simulators with a C-21A configured cockpit, but
could require offerors to amortize and recover this cost in the student
training CLINs.

Flight Safety points out that the solicitation included a separate CLIN for
the contractor's cost for computer-aided instruction software development.
Flight Safety contends that if the agency found a separate CLIN appropriate
in the instance of computer-aided instruction development, then it should
also be found appropriate for modifications to flight simulators.  The
agency responds that it made the determination to include a separate CLIN
for computer-aided instruction software development because the software
would become the government's property once it was developed; in contrast,
the contractor-converted C-21A simulators will be
provided and maintained solely by the contractor and will continue to be the
contractor's property at contract expiration.  Contracting Officer's
Statement at 4.  We find no basis to question the agency's distinction.[2]

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

                          -------------------------

[1] Moreover, the agency report states, and Flight Safety has failed to
rebut, that the flight simulators can be converted from a C-21A to a Lear
commercial configuration in a minimal amount of time (approximately 1 day or
overnight), which would enable the contractor to use the same simulator for
commercial clients when it is not being used by the Air Force C-21A
contract.  The agency notes in this regard that it schedules classes around
the contractor's commercial flight training schedule.  Contracting Officer's
Statement at 4.  This would appear to mitigate the contractor's risk.
[2] Flight Safety also contends that the RFP does not address the
contractor's ability to recover costs resulting from late training
cancellations or "no shows."  The agency states that it will amend the RFP
to address this issue, which renders this protest ground academic.