TITLE:  Starlight Corporation, B-291520, January 3, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-291520
DATE:  January 3, 2003
**********************************************************************
Starlight Corporation, B-291520, January 3, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:    Starlight Corporation
    
File:             B-291520
    
Date:              January 3, 2003
    
Rick Hall for the protester.
Denise A. McLane, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest that contracting agency unreasonably rejected proposal as
technically unacceptable is denied where agency reasonably understood the
protester's proposal as failing to provide the staffing that the
solicitation specified as required for particular services under the
statement of work. 
DECISION
    
Starlight Corporation protests the award of a contract to Empire Aircraft
Service under request for proposals (RFP) No. F28609-02-R-0014, issued by
the Department of the Air Force for aircraft wash services at McGuire Air
Force Base.  Starlight contends that the Air Force improperly rejected its
proposal as technically unacceptable.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The solicitation, issued on March 30, 2002, for aircraft wash services
management functions, aircraft wash and lubrication services, and
emergency services, provided for award to the responsible small business
offeror whose conforming proposal was most advantageous to the
government.  The solicitation stated that the lowest-priced technical
proposals would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis for five specified
factors; and further provided that the contracting officer would request
performance information on the lowest-priced technically acceptable
proposals in order to assess the offerors' ability to perform the effort
described in the RFP.  In the award decision, past performance history was
to be significantly more important than price.  The solicitation also
provided that the government intended to award a contract without
conducting discussions.
    
Nine proposals were received from seven offerors by the May 17, 2002
closing date.  As a result of the evaluation of the technical proposals,
Starlight's proposal received a rating of *fail.*  While the evaluators
found Starlight's proposal to be very well prepared with an excellent
staffing plan and detailed list of equipment, Starlight's proposed
staffing for certain towing operations failed to comply with the statement
of work (SOW) and technical data, which the agency determined made it
impossible to rate Starlight's overall proposal as passing.  Agency Report
(AR), Tab 9, Technical Evaluation Summary, at 2.  Specifically, the
solicitation provided that with respect to wash rack tow of the C-141/
C-17/ KC-135 aircraft as follows:

   Note:  IAW applicable technical data all C-141, C-17 and KC-135 towing
operations into and out of hangar facilities require 7 personnel.
RFP S: A1.2b.
    
In its proposal in response to S: A1.2b, Starlight stated:
    
The contract manager will assign 6 personnel to serve as observation
walkers while towing aircraft to or from the wash rack facilities.  Each
person assigned will have qualifications documented that ensures he or she
has attended the proper training classes for this operation and is full[y]
knowledgeable of the [Logistics Group Operating Instruction (LGOI)] 2-129
and the LGOI 21-201.  Each personnel will wear reflective vest clothing
and will have a whistle and flashlight for nighttime activities.  Wash
personnel will remain vigilant of the aircrafts position to other
aircraft, structures, or obstacles that may impact the aircraft during
this towing segment.  The contract manager will ensure that the driver of
the tow vehicle is licensed and certified to operate the support
equipment.
    AR, Tab 4, Starlight's Proposal at 8.
    
The agency found that Starlight's proposal directly conflicted with the
specific solicitation requirement that seven personnel were required for
towing C‑141/C‑17/KC-135 aircraft into and out of hangars.
    
Three proposals, including Empire's, were considered technical
acceptable.  Although Empire did not submit the lowest price of the three
technically acceptable proposals, the agency determined that Empire's
exceptional past performance rating outweighed the price difference, and
award was made to Empire.
    
After receiving a debriefing, Starlight filed this protest, contending
that it met all the requirements of the SOW.  After the protest was filed,
the Air Force determined that, based on the urgent and compelling need for
the services, continued performance of the contract was in the best
interest of the government. 
    
The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of
the contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its
needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Encorp-Samcrete Joint
Venture, B-284171,
B-284171.2, Mar. 2, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 55 at 4.  In reviewing an agency's
evaluation,
we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but instead will examine the
agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with
the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and with procurement
statutes and regulations.  Id.  The offeror has the burden of submitting
an adequately written proposal, and an offeror's mere disagreement with
the agency's judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not
sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  PEMCO World
Air Servs., B-284240.3, et al., Mar. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 71 at 15. 
Here, the record establishes that the Air Force reasonably evaluated
Starlight's proposal as technically unacceptable with respect to its
proposed staffing for C-141/C-17/KC-135 towing operations.
    
As explained above, the solicitation specifically stated that C-141, C-17
and
KC-135 towing operations require seven personnel.  The protester maintains
it met this requirement in its proposal by stating that there would be six
walking observers and an A&P mechanic supervisor driving the tow vehicle
for a total of seven.  However, as quoted above, the protester merely
stated that it would assign six personnel to serve as observation walkers
while towing aircraft to or from the wash rack facilities and went on to
indicate that the tow vehicle driver would have the appropriate
credentials.  The protester's proposal did not specifically state that it
proposed a tow vehicle driver in addition to the six observation walkers. 
The protester argues that the agency should have understood Starlight's
statement that the contract manager would ensure that the tow vehicle
driver is licensed and certified to operate the equipment as indicating
that the tow vehicle driver would be in addition to the six other
personnel, for a total of the seven required by the solicitation.
    
However, as the agency has pointed out, there is no express language in
the protester's proposal stating that Starlight's proposed tow vehicle
driver was in addition to the six observation walkers.  Consequently, the
evaluators had no way of knowing whether Starlight's proposed six
observation walkers included the tow vehicle driver.  In this regard, with
respect to a similar requirement for wash rack towing of KC-10 aircraft
(RFP S: A1.2(a)), which called for a total of only six personnel, rather
than seven personnel, the protester offered six observation walkers and
also stated the vehicle driver would be licensed.  This response could
reasonably have suggested to the agency that the protester was offering a
total of six personnel in both circumstances, with one of the proposed
walkers also serving as a driver.  In our view, Starlight's proposal was
ambiguous at best, and it was not unreasonable for the agency to conclude
that Starlight proposed only six personnel to perform this operation, in
conflict with the solicitation requirement.  In this regard, in its
response to the agency after the debriefing, Starlight itself conceded
that it failed to propose the required number of personnel, a concession
the protester now contends was misplaced and offered as part of an
*emotional response to the disappointment of not being awarded a
contract.*  Protester's Comments at 1.  Regardless of Starlight's current
position on its earlier concession, we do not find the agency's evaluation
unreasonable, as explained above.[1]
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] The protester also expresses concerns about this award to Empire
because award was also made to Empire for certain transient alert services
at McGuire by the same contracting office.  To the extent the protester
speculates that the agency's evaluation was biased in favor of Empire, the
record provides no basis to support the speculation.  Government officials
are presumed to act in good faith, and we will not attribute unfair or
prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference or
supposition.  Triton Marine Constr. Corp., B-250856, Feb. 23, 1993, 93-1
CPD P: 171 at 6.