TITLE:  Houston Air, Inc., B-292382, August 25, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292382
DATE:  August 25, 2003
**********************************************************************
Houston Air, Inc., B-292382, August 25, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Houston Air, Inc.
    
File:            B-292382
    
Date:              August 25, 2003
    
William B. Allison for the protester.
Christopher P. Terry, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Agency properly selected higher priced, higher technically rated
quotation for award where agency reasonably determined that awardee's
technical advantages were worth the higher price, and protester failed to
provide information required by the solicitation.
    
2.  Under procurement conducted under simplified acquisition procedures,
there was nothing improper in obtaining clarifications from the awardee
and not giving the protester an opportunity to correct a major deficiency
under one of the evaluation factors that rendered its quotation
unacceptable under that factor. 
DECISION
    
Houston Air, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Commander Northwest
Ltd., by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under request
for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ R1-03-26, to provide air tactical fixed-wing
aircraft services for fire management and other missions primarily in the
Northern Region National Forests.  Houston challenges the reasonableness
of the agency's evaluation and alleges that unequal discussions were
conducted. 
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The USDA requires aircraft to operate as an *Air Attack Platform* for Air
Tactical Group Supervisors (ATGS) conducting and directing aerial incident
fire management activities.  The ATGS use the aircraft as an aerial *eye
in the sky* to perform fire surveillance and reconnaissance, provide input
to ground fire managers, and coordinate wildfire suppression efforts.  The
aircraft may also be used to perform point-to-point flights, transport
passengers and cargo, and perform other missions, including training of
new ATGS. 
    
The RFQ, issued as a simplified commercial item acquisition under Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 13.5, provides for the award of
a fixed‑price contract for a base year with two 1-year options. 
Award was to be made *on the basis of price and other factors including
past performance, weight and balance sheet based on [RFQ S:]C.11b.
Payload[1], experience, safety, qualifications of pilots, equipment, and
maintenance.*  RFQ S: E.3.  Contractors were to submit for evaluation a
weight and balance sheet and completed questionnaires pertaining to
aircraft capability, personnel, company and mechanics, aircraft avionics,
safety and maintenance, and past performance.  Contractors also were to
provide for evaluation fixed prices on a per-hour and per-day basis during
a *mandatory availability period* (either 80 or 90 days, depending on the
schedule option) specified in the RFQ.  The RFQ stated that quotations
*shall meet, or exceed* the stated performance requirements listed in RFQ
S: C.11, including the minimum requirements for space for a pilot plus
three passengers, and minimal restrictions on outward visibility for the
front and rear seat observers; additional requirements were stated for
payload, avionics, personnel, and other aircraft features.   
    
Six quotations were received in response to the RFQ, with Houston
submitting the lowest one, and Commander submitting the second lowest
one.[2]  For each questionnaire section, quotations were rated
outstanding, good, fair, or unacceptable, with pluses and minuses to
indicate variations within a rating; these ratings were assigned points
ranging from zero points for outstanding to three points for
unacceptable.  The technical ratings for Houston and Commander were as
follows:
    

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                               |Commander             |Houston          |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+-----------------|
|Aircraft Capability            |Good +                |Good             |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+-----------------|
|Personnel                      |Good                  |Good +           |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+-----------------|
|Company and Mechanic           |Good +                |Good             |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+-----------------|
|Aircraft Avionics              |Outstanding           |Good +           |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+-----------------|
|Safety and Maintenance         |Good --               |Good             |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+-----------------|
|Past Performance               |Outstanding           |Good --          |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+-----------------|
|Weight and Balance             |Good                  |Unacceptable     |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+-----------------|
|Total Points                   |6.5                   |12.5             |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

    
AR at 6; Tab C.1, Flip Chart Worksheets, at 5.
    
The USDA noted several advantages to the Commander aircraft, including a
useful payload of 2,778 pounds, which was greater than Houston's payload
of 2,214 pounds.  Furthermore, Houston did not submit a weight and balance
sheet or provide all of the information pertaining to the weight and
balance factor, which led the agency to assess an unacceptable rating for
this factor.  The USDA noted that in a prior contract, the weight of
Houston's aircraft was understated on one occasion by almost 500 pounds,
which raised concern about Houston's ability to meet the weight and
balance requirements of the RFQ.  AR, Tab C.4, Contracting Officer's
Determination of Award, at 1-2; Contracting Officer's Statement P:P: 55,
60.
    
The USDA also found advantageous the Commander aircraft's capacity to
carry six passengers, and the visibility afforded passengers from
specially designed bubble windows located at all observation seats.  In
contrast, the agency determined that Houston's aircraft could accommodate
only four passengers, and contained a bubble window only for the
co-pilot.  The agency noted that the extra passenger seating in the
Commander aircraft could be used for additional ATGS training, and the
additional bubble windows permitted the ATGS trainees the same view as the
ATGS to optimize the training exercise.  AR, Tab C.4, Contracting
Officer's Determination of Award, at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement
P:P: 41-43, 58.
    
The USDA also noted that Commander had a superior avionics package, such
as two Technisonic FM radios, while Houston offered only one Technisonic
radio and one Northern Airborne Technologies radio.  The USDA found that
Houston's two-radio package would require additional training and would
*complicate the air attack duties* because the two radios required
different programming, and thus determined that this was a *potential
safety issue.*  AR, Tab C.4, Contracting Officer's Determination of Award,
at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement P:P: 44-45.
    
The USDA also found superior Commander's aircraft engines, which were more
powerful than Houston's and, as a result, could carry a greater useful
load.  Commander's aircraft also contained a built-in oxygen system, which
the agency noted required less training and posed fewer safety issues than
Houston's portable oxygen system.  Another advantage the agency noted was
that Commander's aircraft contained a *porta potty* and Houston's aircraft
did not.  A number of other features in the Commander aircraft were found
to *significantly add to the value* of the aircraft, including a moving
map global positioning system (GPS) that could be used to map fires,
multiple 110-volt outlets for use with lap top computers, portable camera
ports installed in the floor of aircraft to facilitate the use of thermal
photographic equipment, and an on-board satellite phone to communicate
with ground forces.  Contracting Officer's Statement P:P: 46-54. 
    
Additionally, the USDA found that Commander had experienced personnel and
a *good pool* of pilots, *excellent* training and *very good* safety
plans, *great* past performance, and a *good* weight and balance sheet.
    Houston was also found to have proposed good personnel, as indicated by
its high rating under the pertinent factor.  AR, Tab C.4, Contracting
Officer's Determination of Award, at 1-2.
    
Commander's weight and balance sheet showing compliance with the minimum
RFQ requirements was based on actual weights, which were even higher than
the 220 pounds per person weight provided in the RFQ.  The USDA requested
that Commander submit a corrected weight and balance sheet based on the
220 pounds per person weight.  Additionally, the USDA requested that
Commander confirm which of the pilots identified in the quotation would be
the primary pilot.  Finally, the USDA requested safety plans and related
information concerning an aircraft accident that Commander reported in the
past 3 years.  Contracting Officer's Statement P:P: 62, 64; Contracting
Officer's Supplemental Statement at 1-2.  Commander submitted information
in response to these requests.  Houston was  not requested to submit any
additional information.
    
Based on its evaluation of the quotations, the USDA selected Commander for
award.  The agency determined that based on Commander's *aircraft, pilots,
useful payload of 2,778 [pounds], capability of carrying six passengers,
which will give more versatility to the aircraft, the excellent visibility
of the aircraft, excellent avionics package that enhances the safety of
the aircraft and dedication to training of the company . . . award to
[Commander] is worth the additional cost.*  AR, Tab C.4, Contracting
Officer's Determination of Award, at 1-2.
    
Houston protests the reasonableness of the USDA's evaluation and selection
of the higher priced quotation.  As noted above, the USDA conducted this
acquisition using simplified procedures, which are designed to, among
other things, reduce administrative costs, promote efficiency and economy
in contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and
contractors.  FAR S: 13.002; Sawtooth Enters., Inc., B-281218, Dec. 7,
1998, 98-2 CPD P: 139 at 3.  Our Office reviews allegations of improper
agency actions in conducting simplified acquisitions to ensure that the
procurements are conducted consistent with a concern for fair and
equitable competition and with the terms of the solicitation.  Russell
Enters. of North Carolina, Inc., B-292320, July 17, 2003, 2003 CPD P: __
at 3.
    
Houston first contends that the USDA unreasonably rated it unacceptable
for failing to provide a weight and balance sheet.  It argues that the
USDA should have requested the sheet from Houston and that unequal
discussions occurred since the agency requested a new weight and balance
sheet from Commander, as well as safety plans and pilot information.  
    
The USDA responds that the items sought from Commander were
clarifications, not discussions.  The agency explains that Commander had
already submitted an acceptable weight and balance sheet with weights
exceeding those provided for in the RFQ and still satisfied the required
performance requirements; the new sheet was requested solely to reflect
the lower payload using the RFQ-provided weights.  As for the safety
plans, the RFQ permitted the USDA to request follow-up safety information
from any contractor that had an aircraft accident in the past 3 years, RFQ
S: B.10.a(4), and the agency states it sought this information in order to
make its responsibility determination.  After reviewing the information
provided, the USDA determined that the accident was *off contract and
weather related,* and that Commander had implemented policy changes since
the accident and conducted safety training for abnormal and emergency
situations, which the USDA found to be satisfactory.  Identification of
the lead pilot was sought in order to clarify information already provided
by Commander in its quotation.  In no event, the agency explains, was
Commander permitted to modify or supplement its quotation.  Furthermore,
the information was requested after the evaluation had been completed, and
the evaluation ratings did not change as a result. 
    
In contrast, the USDA explains, Houston did not provide a weight and
balance sheet, so any additional information sought would have permitted
Houston to modify an unacceptable quotation.  Although Houston provided
some weight and balance calculations, it did not include all of the
information required by Section C.11.b. of the RFQ, so unlike with
Commander, the USDA was unable to evaluate whether Houston's quotation met
the weight and balance requirements of the RFQ based upon the information
first provided. 
    
Under the circumstances, we find that the USDA's decisions to rate
Houston's quotation unacceptable under the weight and balance factor and
to not conduct discussions with that firm were reasonable and not unfair. 
The RFQ informed offerors that award would be made without discussions,
RFQ S: E.1(g), and it does not appear from the record that the exchanges
afforded Commander an opportunity to revise its quotation.  Given that
Houston failed to provide the required weight and balance sheet, which
rendered its quotation unacceptable under this factor, the agency did not
have to engage in discussions with Houston to enable it to remedy this
deficiency.  CDS Network Sys., Inc., B‑281200, Dec. 21, 1998, 98-2
CPD P: 154 at 3.
    
Houston also complains that the USDA downgraded its past performance
rating, based upon an erroneous weight recording in a prior contract,
which Houston asserts was not its fault and did not cause it to fail
contract performance requirements.  The record reflects, however, that the
agency took this into account, but noted that regardless of the cause, the
inaccurate understatement, coupled with the inconsistencies in the weight
information provided in Houston's current quotation and Houston's failure
to provide the required weight and balance sheet, caused the USDA to be
concerned about Houston's ability to meet payload requirements, and
resulted in a lowering of Houston's overall rating.  AR, Tab C.4,
Contracting Officer's Determination of Award, at 2; Contracting Officer's
Statement P:P: 55, 60.  Based upon our review of the record, we find the
agency's determination to be reasonable.
    
Houston also argues that the USDA did not fairly consider alleged
beneficial features of its aircraft, such as, for example, air
conditioning, two GPS systems, three VHF communications systems, and a
traffic advisory system.  However, in documenting a source selection
decision, an agency need not address each and every feature of a
quotation, but must show only that its evaluation conclusions are
reasonably based.  Consolidated Eng'g Serv., Inc., B-279565.2, B-279565.3,
June 26, 1998, 99-1 CPD P: 75 at 5.  Here, we find that the USDA provides
ample examples to support its determination to award to the higher priced
contractor.  As noted above, the USDA found a number of safety,
efficiency, and cost saving advantages in the Commander aircraft.  Some of
these features included the additional seating capacity, better visibility
from all seats, superior avionics, more powerful engines, a proper weight
and balance sheet, pilot experience, and company commitment to training
and safety.  Although Houston disputes the agency's conclusions regarding
some of these features, it has provided no evidence demonstrating the
unreasonableness of the USDA's evaluation, and contrary to Houston's
arguments, the evaluation record does not reflect an agency bias against
it.  Based upon our review of the record, we find that the USDA fairly
considered Houston's quotation and reasonably selected Commander's higher
priced, higher rated quotation for award.[3]  Russell Enters., supra, at
4. 
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] Section C.11.b of the RFQ specified, among other requirements, that
aircraft were to have a positive rate of climb when equipped for the
contract and carrying one pilot and two observers at 220 pounds each, plus
fuel for 4 hours with a 30-minute reserve, and certain other performance
parameters.
[2] Commander's quoted price was $788 per day, based on either the 80 or
90 day mandatory period, and $484 per hour, based on an estimated 138
hours.  Houston's quoted price was $715 per day and $425 per hour, based
on the same periods.  As determined by the USDA, Houston's price was
$6,570 lower for the contract base period under the per-day option. 
Agency Report (AR), Tab E, Houston Quotation, at 8; Tab G, Commander
Quotation, at 6; Tab C.4, Contracting Officer's Determination of Award, at
2.
[3] Houston also argues that the USDA's failure to exercise an option
under its existing contract for these services suggests bias on the part
of the agency against Houston.  However, an agency's decision not to
exercise an option is a matter of contract administration, which our
Office will not review.  Jones, Rusotto & Walker, B‑283288.2, Dec.
17, 1999, 99-2 CPD P: 111 at 4.