TITLE:  Houston Air, Inc., B-292345, August 15, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292345
DATE:  August 15, 2003
**********************************************************************
Houston Air, Inc., B-292345, August 15, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:    Houston Air, Inc.
    
File:             B-292345
    
Date:              August 15, 2003
    
William B. Allison for the protester.
Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., and Alton E. Woods, Esq., Department of the
Interior, 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
    
Agency reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation
scheme selected awardee's higher-priced, higher-rated proposal for
aircraft services, where the awardee's more relevant experience and past
performance was reasonably found to be superior and to offset the
protester's modest price advantage.
DECISION
    
American East Airways, Inc. dba Houston Air, Inc. protests the award of a
contract to Spur Aviation Services by the Department of the Interior's
Office of Aircraft Services, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No.
8003-25, for contractor operated and maintained air attack fixed wing
aircraft, for use in support of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) fire
management program to assist in the suppression of wildfires.  Houston Air
argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its experience and past
performance, and made an unreasonable award decision.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The RFP was issued on March 2003 using simplified acquisition procedures. 
The RFP anticipated award of up to three separate fixed-price contracts
for three aircraft, based at Ely, Nevada, Richfield, Utah, and Billings,
Montana, for *exclusive use* during the fire season, with three option
periods of the same duration for the fire seasons in the next 3 years. 
Each of the aircraft here will be used to provide an aerial platform for
the government Air Attack Group Supervisor (ATGS), who provides
communication and direction to tactical, fire suppression aircraft.  The
contractor-provided pilot and the ATGS essentially control the airspace
over the fire area, thereby helping to reduce the risk of mid-air
collision of aircraft.  At issue here is the award of item No. 3 to Spur
Aviation for an aircraft and pilot for Billings, Montana for *exclusive
use* 14 hours a day for the 86-calendar day fire season (with the three
options).     
    
The RFP advised that the offers would be evaluated for award based on the
following evaluation factors:  evaluated price, aircraft payload
capacity[1], and offeror capability.[2]  The offeror capability factor was
comprised of two subfactors:  organizational experience and organizational
past performance.  With regard to organizational past performance, the RFP
stated, *[o]ur own experience with you, if any, will be given greater
weight than reports obtained from others.*  RFP S: D3.4.2.  Award was to
be made to the proposal that offered the *best combination of aircraft
payload capacity, offeror capability, and evaluated price.*  RFP S: D3.5. 
    
The agency received eight proposals, including those of Houston Air and
Spur, by the April 1 closing date.  The contracting officer eliminated two
proposals as being unreasonably high priced, and compared the remaining
six proposals based on price and the non-price factors.  Spur's proposal
was the only one that received an excellent rating for the aircraft
payload capacity factor and for the organizational experience and
organizational past performance subfactors.[3]  Spur's evaluated price for
item No. 3 was second highest at $588,660.[4]  Houston Air's proposal also
received an excellent rating for the aircraft payload capacity factor, and
received good ratings for the organizational experience and organizational
past performance subfactors.  Houston Air's evaluated price for item No. 3
was fourth highest at $560,660.  Agency Report, Tab 16, Source Selection
Decision, at 6.  The contracting officer concluded that Spur's proposal
represented the best value to the government and made award to that firm
for item No. 3.  The contracting officer's explanation for selecting
Spur's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award was as follows:
    
Item 3-   Spur Aviation is the highest rated offer under all 3 items;
however, this firm limited its offer to award of 1 item.  Their price is
higher than 4 other firms.  The additional costs for Spur Aviation is
insignificant in comparison to the excellent experience and past
performance of Spur Aviation, specifically working for the BLM in the
western area.  Billings, Montana can take advantage of Spur Aviation's
increased aircraft payload capabilities due to use of the aircraft as a
training platform where a third crewperson will be a normal compl[e]ment. 
Id. at 7.  This protest, contesting the agency's award of item No. 3 to
Spur, followed.
    
When using simplified acquisition procedures, an agency must conduct the
procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition. 
Environmental Tectonics Corp., B-280573.2, Dec. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD P: 140
at 4.  When reviewing protests against an allegedly improper evaluation,
we will examine the record to determine whether the agency met this
standard and reasonably exercised its discretion.  Lynwood Mach. & Eng'g,
Inc., B-287652, Aug. 2, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 138 at 2. 
    
Houston Air argues that its good rating under the organizational
experience subfactor was unreasonably low, given its extensive
*call-when-needed* aircraft usage experience during the past 3 years,
together with the one *exclusive use* contract that it performed during
the 2002 operating season for 125 hours (which was not renewed for 2003),
which it identified in its proposal. 
    
The agency explains that the evaluation of organizational experience
focused on *the extent to which [the offeror has] performed services of
the kind described in . . . the Technical Specifications of this RFP and
under similar contract terms.*  RFP S: D.3.4.1.  This procurement required
that the contractor provide an airplane and pilot for *exclusive use* by
the ATGS for 86 days at Billings Logan Airport in Billings, Montana. 
Spur's proposal identified the three *exclusive use* contracts that it is
currently performing for the BLM with usage ranging from 240 to 300 hours
per year, an *exclusive use* contract that it performed for the BLM in
2001 for 290 hours, as well as extensive *call-when-needed* usage
experience during the 2001 fire season.  It was this more extensive
*exclusive use* experience that contributed to Spur's excellent rating for
organizational experience, as compared to Houston Air's good rating based
on its *call-when-needed* experience.
    
The agency notes that there are many differences between *exclusive use*
and *call-when-needed* contracts/aircraft rental agreements, including the
day-to-day logistical support and operational requirements.  For example,
the agency explains that performing work over a long period of time away
from the operator's place of business is a consistent part of the
*exclusive use* effort, and, while *call-when-needed* contracts may entail
extended absences from the fixed base
operation of the operator, it is not a consistent occurrence nor is it
mandatory. Agency Report, Tab 13, Government's Technical and Experience
Evaluation of Houston Air, at 7.  The agency goes on to state that:
    
Under Call When Needed, the vendor has a right of refusal of the order or
acceptance of the order with a caveat allowing the operator to remove the
aircraft from service for repairs, replacement, or to take advantage of an
opportunity cost, unlike what is required under an exclusive use
contract.  We are not discounting the Call When Needed experience
entirely, rather in this case it is being compared with a firm that has a
proven track record of providing highly reliable service under the terms
of a exclusive use contract.
Agency Report, Tab 21, Contracting Officer Letter to Houston Air (May 28,
2003), at 2.  While Houston Air asserts that *call-when-needed* contracts
actually put more risk on the contractor and that such experience should
have been given more weight in the evaluation, we find nothing
unreasonable in the agency giving *exclusive use* experience, the subject
of this contract, greater weight in the evaluation, given that the RFP put
offerors on notice that performing *under similar contract terms* would be
given more credit.
    
Next, Houston Air argues that the good rating that it received for the
organizational past performance subfactor was unreasonably low because it
had performed numerous similar contracts with other agencies and received
excellent ratings, yet this experience was given lesser weight than
experience with BLM.  Houston Air notes that fire fighting missions with
land management agencies have been interagency for quite a while, and
therefore it follows that *experience with any of the Agencies
participating in the National Wildland Coordinating Group would [have]
been given the same weight in evaluation of proposals.*  Houston Air's
Comments at 2.  Here too, the agency's evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the RFP.  In this regard, the RFP specifically advised
that experience providing similar services with BLM would be given greater
weight than experience with other agencies, RFP S: D3.4.2, and the record
shows that Spur has extensive relevant BLM experience and Houston Air does
not.[5] 
    
Finally, Houston Air contests the agency's cost/technical tradeoff that
found Spur's significant *exclusive use* experience and outstanding
performance under BLM contracts, and outstanding aircraft capabilities,
justified the increased cost of $28,000 (the difference between the total
evaluated price of the proposals of Spur and Houston Air) over the 4-year
period (including options).  As noted above, Spur's higher ratings for
experience and past performance were reasonable and in accord with the RFP
evaluation scheme, and we find that the agency reasonably determined that
this superiority offset Houston Air's modest price advantage.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    
         
    
    
          
    
    

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

   [1] The target aircraft requirements in the RFP stated that the plane must
have a payload of at least 780 pounds.  RFP S: A1.  The RFP also stated
that the higher the payload of the proposed aircraft, the better
evaluation it will receive under the aircraft payload capacity factor. 
RFP S: D3.3. 
[2] In addition, *offer acceptability* was evaluated on a go/no go basis. 
[3] An adjectival rating of excellent, good, acceptable or inadequate was
assigned to each proposal for each factor and subfactor.
[4] The total evaluated price was the sum of the evaluated prices for all
contract and option years.
[5] To the extent Houston Air is protesting the propriety of the
evaluation preference for BLM experience, such a protest would be
untimely.  Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests based upon
alleged improprieties in an RFP be filed prior to the date set for receipt
of proposals.  See 4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(1) (2003).  Since Houston Air did
not protest this matter prior to the closing date for receipt of proposal,
any such protest would be untimely.