TITLE:  Frasca International, Inc., B-293299, February 6, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293299
DATE:  February 6, 2004
**********************************************************************
Frasca International, Inc., B-293299, February 6, 2004

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective      
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.        

   Decision
    
Matter of:   Frasca International, Inc.
    
File:            B-293299
    
Date:              February 6, 2004
    
Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., L. James D'Agostino, Esq., Leigh T. Hansson,
Esq., and Natalia W. Geren, Esq., Reed Smith, for the protester.
Geoffrey D. Chun, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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
    
Protest that agency improperly consolidated requirements for pilot
training with flight training devices in violation of the Competition in
Contracting Act is denied, where the protester does not allege, and the
record does not show, that the consolidation precluded it from having a
reasonable chance for award, and thus the protester has not shown that it
was prejudiced.
DECISION
    
Frasca International, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals
(RFP) No. N61339-03-R-0084, issued by the Department of the Navy for pilot
instructors and flight training devices (FTD) to administer classroom and
simulator training for the TC-12B aircraft.  Frasca contends that
*bundling* of the FTDs with the other training services, which were
previously procured under separate contracts, contravenes the Competition
in Contracting Act (CICA).
    
We deny the protest.
    
In August and September of 2003, the Navy published a *sources sought*
notice and two pre-solicitation notices concerning the requirement for
pilot training and two FTDs.  Both small and large businesses responded to
these notices, and interested firms were provided a site visit to
familiarize them with the government-furnished property required to be
used under the contract.  At least seven small businesses, five of which
were FTD suppliers, attended the site visit, and the agency visited the
facilities of four FTD suppliers, including two small businesses.  Frasca
is one of the small business FTD suppliers that responded to the *sources
sought* notice, attended the site visit, and whose facilities were visited
by the Navy. 
    
The RFP was then issued on October 6, 2003 as a small business set-aside. 
The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price contract for a base year of
approximately 3 years and 8 months, with a first option for 1 year and a
second option for approximately 4 months.  Award was to be made to the
offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the
government, based on technical, past performance, and price. 
    
The date set for receipt of initial proposals was November 12; however,
past performance proposals were due by October 27 at 2 p.m.  The RFP
specified that proposals were to be submitted in hard copy and disk
format. 
    
At 2:01 p.m. on October 27, Frasca submitted a past performance proposal
by e-mail transmission.  Its proposal provided references for itself as
the prime contractor who would provide the FTDs, and a subcontractor
proposed to perform the training portion of the work.  On October 29, the
Navy notified Frasca that its proposal was rejected as untimely and would
not be further considered. 
    
On November 6, the Navy amended the RFP, making minor changes to the
solicitation and extending the date for receipt of proposals (including
the past performance proposal) until 2 p.m. on November 17.  The Navy
provided a copy of this amendment to Frasca and invited it to submit a
proposal.  Frasca requested an extension of time to respond to the RFP,
but the Navy denied the request. 
    
On November 17, [REDACTED] small business offerors submitted proposals. 
These offerors are FTD suppliers who had attended the site visit.  Frasca
did not submit a proposal, but instead protested to our Office prior to
the RFP's extended closing time for receipt of proposals.  Frasca contends
that the Navy improperly consolidated the FTD requirements with the
training requirements in violation of CICA.
    
CICA generally requires that solicitations include specifications which
permit full and open competition, and contain restrictive provisions and
conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the
agency.  See 10 U.S.C. S:S: 2503(a)(1)(A), (B) (2000).  Since bundled or
consolidated procurements combine separate, multiple requirements into one
contract, they have the potential for restricting competition by excluding
firms that can furnish only a portion of the requirement.  We review such
solicitations, when they are protested, to determine whether the
consolidation is reasonably required to satisfy the agency's legitimate
needs.  AirTrak Travel et al., B‑292101 et al., June 30, 2003, 2003
CPD P: 117 at 16.
    
Although prior to this procurement the Navy had awarded separate contracts
for training services and the lease of the FTDs, the agency explains that
the leases were solely for the purpose of providing the FTDs as
government-furnished equipment to the training contractor to conduct pilot
training.  When the FTD leasing contract expired, the Navy sought to
combine the two requirements.  The Navy explains that this was done, in
part, to make the procurement consistent with other aircraft training
contracts (which combined training with FTD requirements) and because
available appropriations required such an approach.  It asserts that it
has no independent need for the FTDs other than to use them as a *tool*
for training purposes.  The Navy also asserts that efficiencies will
result from bundling because *the contractors can propose the proper mix
of FTDs and pilot instruction that offers the best value to the
Government,* as opposed to the Navy having to make such a determination
under separate contracts.  Agency Supplemental Report at 1 n.1.
    
Frasca contends that these reasons are insufficient to demonstrate that
bundling was necessary to meet the agency's needs.  Rather, Frasca argues
that the Navy's reasoning merely demonstrates that the agency failed to
perform adequate acquisition planning.  It asserts that bundling restricts
FTD suppliers like itself from participating, stating that many suppliers
do not also provide the training services required by the RFP.
    
We need not reach the issue of whether the Navy has sufficiently justified
its consolidation of the requirements because the record does not show
that the protester has suffered any prejudice, even if the requirements
were improperly consolidated.  Competitive prejudice is an essential
element of every viable protest; where the record does not demonstrate
that, but for the agency's actions, the protester would have had a
reasonable chance of receiving the award, our Office will not sustain a
protest, even if a deficiency in the procurement is found.  ABF Freight
Sys., Inc., et al., B-291185, Nov. 8, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 201 at 7; MCS
Mgmt., Inc., B‑285813; B‑285882, Oct. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD P:
187 at 9.  
    
Nowhere in its protest submissions does Frasca allege that the *bundled*
requirements precluded it from having a reasonable chance for award.  To
the contrary, it identified in its response to the *sources sought* notice
and in its past performance proposal two firms that it affirmatively
stated it would be teaming with to provide the training portion of the
work, and provided past performance information concerning one of these
firms, never suggesting to the Navy that the teaming arrangements had not
been finalized or that bundling was impeding its ability to compete. 
    
Although Frasca now asserts that the teaming arrangements with these firms
*did not come to final fruition,* Frasca does not contend that the
discussions failed due to the bundling restrictions.  Protester's Comments
at 6.  Rather, it complains only that it did not have sufficient time to
submit a proposal when it was provided another opportunity to compete
under the amended RFP, because Frasca had discontinued discussions with
its potential teaming partners when its past performance proposal was
rejected in October as untimely, and the Navy had established a short
deadline for proposal submissions.  Thus, the record shows that to the
extent Frasca was unable to compete, it was due to the breakdown of
teaming discussions caused by Frasca's untimely proposal submission, not
by bundling.     
    
In any case, we find no evidence in the record that the bundled
requirements restricted competition by excluding small business FTD
suppliers.  Given that [RECACTED] offerors that responded to the RFP were
FTD suppliers, it does not appear that competition was restricted by the
Navy's consolidation of the requirements here.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel