TITLE: B-297904.2, Starlight Corporation, Inc., April 14, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297904.2
DATE: April 14, 2006
*******************************************************
B-297904.2, Starlight Corporation, Inc., April 14, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Starlight Corporation, Inc.

   File: B-297904.2

   Date:  April 14, 2006

   Susan K. Chelsea, Esq., and R. Patrick McCullough, Esq., McCullough &
   Associates, APC, for the protester.

   Brian A. Darst, Esq., for Empire Aircraft Services, Inc., an intervenor.

   Maj. Derek S. Sherrill, 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

   Agency had reasonable basis for canceling request for proposals for
   aircraft services where solicitation was ambiguous with regard to the
   experience required resulting in possible prejudice to the competition and
   where one of the reasonable interpretations of the experience requirement
   overstated the agency's actual needs.

   DECISION

   Starlight Corporation, Inc. protests that the Department of the Air Force
   improperly canceled request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4479-05-R-0001, for
   aircraft services at McChord Air Force Base, Washington.

   We deny the protest.

   The aircraft services requested under the RFP, issued as a small business
   set-aside, include transient alert; aircraft wash, lubrication and
   corrosion control; "follow me"/special purpose vehicles; de-icing, glycol
   recovery services, and wash water clean up; and emergency or warfare
   contingency operation services. Starlight was awarded the contract, and
   Empire Aircraft Services subsequently protested the award to our Office,
   alleging that the agency deviated from the stated evaluation criteria,
   which assertedly required certain experience. The agency notified our
   Office that it would be taking corrective action by reevaluating the
   offers, and our Office dismissed the protest. After reevaluating the
   proposals, the agency again determined to make the award to Starlight.
   Empire filed another protest with our Office on essentially the same
   basis. In response, the Air Force decided to terminate the contract with
   Starlight, cancel the RFP and resolicit the services. In response to the
   agency's corrective action our Office dismissed Empire's protest as
   academic. On January 10, 2006, the Air Force terminated Starlight's
   contract.

   On January 20, Starlight protested the Air Force's termination of its
   contract, and the cancellation of the RFP, which protest we dismissed as
   untimely on January 27.[1] Meanwhile, the protester requested a telephonic
   debriefing. In response, on January 19, the agency, for the first time,
   explained the reasons for the termination of Starlight's contract.
   Starlight again protested--this time timely--the cancellation of the
   solicitation, and termination of its contract, on January 30.[2]

   The Air Force stated that it cancelled the RFP and terminated Starlight's
   contract because it had determined that the solicitation's language was
   ambiguous regarding whether experience was required for certain aircraft
   services as a prerequisite to award. Specifically, the Air Force claims
   that a reading of both the instructions to offerors and the evaluation
   criteria could lead potential offerors to believe that certain experience
   was required in a number of areas to receive award, when, in fact, the
   agency did not intend that any such experience would be required.

   Agencies have broad discretion in deciding whether to cancel negotiated
   procurements and need advance only a reasonable (as opposed to a
   compelling) basis for their decision. Superlative Techs., Inc.,
   B-293709.2, June 18, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 116 at 3. A reasonable basis for
   cancellation exists when, for example, a solicitation is ambiguous in a
   way that affects the competition or overstates the agency's minimum needs,
   such that the cancellation of the solicitation and the issuance of a
   revised solicitation would present the potential for increased
   competition. Global Solutions Network Inc., B-289342.4, March 26, 2002,
   2002 CPD para. 64 at 3.

   The RFP set forth a "best-value" evaluation scheme involving three
   factors: price, technical proposal and past performance. The technical
   proposal was to be evaluated on a "pass/fail" basis, and a tradeoff would
   be made between past performance and price, where past performance was
   considered "significantly more important than price," in order to
   determine the best value to the government.[3] RFP sect. 52.212-2 addend.
   para. 1.

   The RFP's instructions to offerors for the preparation of the technical
   proposal consisted of two parts. The offerors were first to address
   certain mission capability requirements, such as staffing approach and
   organizational approach. The other part, labeled "Technical Requirements,"
   required offerors to describe their transient alert experience; their
   wash, lubrication and corrosion control experience; their deicing, glycol
   recovery services and wash water experience and method/procedures; and
   their emergency or warfare contingency operations services experience. RFP
   sect. 52.212-1 addend. para. 1.d.2.a.2.

   The RFP language describing the technical requirements evaluation
   criterion with regard to the various functional areas does not track the
   information regarding experience that was requested by the proposal
   instructions, in that experience was not specifically said to be the
   subject of the evaluation of most of the various functional areas covered
   by this factor. Instead, for most of these functional areas, the word
   "experience" was not specifically included in the description of the
   criteria, but a "description" and "methodology" of accomplishing the work
   in these functional areas was generally said to be the subject of the
   evaluation. Nevertheless, as discussed below, the wording of the criterion
   suggests that previous experience in various functional areas may be
   required to receive an acceptable rating. RFP sect. 52.212-2 addend. para.
   1.B.2.

   For example, regarding transient alert, the pertinent section of the
   evaluation criterion stated that offerors were to be evaluated on whether
   they "provided a detailed description to type, quantity of aircraft
   handled annually for arrival, departing, and maintenance service and the
   process used in providing previous or current aircraft service." Id. While
   this could read as only requiring a description that evidences that the
   offeror has the capability of performing transient alert services, it
   could also be interpreted as requiring the descriptions of the processes
   for performing this work be based on actual experience, particularly given
   that the proposal instructions only requested information regarding the
   offeror's experience in this functional area.

   With regard to wash, lubrication and corrosion services, the pertinent
   section of the evaluation criterion stated, "Offeror has provided the type
   o[r] quantity of aircraft handled annually for interior or exterior wash,
   corrosion control, lubrication and logistic and dual rails," so as to
   demonstrate "sufficient understanding" of this work. Thus, here too, while
   the criterion could be interpreted that the offeror need only provide
   details to show it understands this functional area, it could also be read
   as requiring experience to be determined acceptable, particularly given
   the proposal instructions.

   Regarding emergency or warfare contingency services, the pertinent section
   of the evaluation criterion only contemplated an evaluation of the
   relevant experience.

   Empire asserted, without rebuttal, that Starlight lacks experience in
   several of the functional areas identified in the RFP, which in Empire's
   view rendered Starlight's proposal unacceptable under the technical
   requirements evaluation criterion, while Empire possessed all the required
   experience.

   The agency now concedes that the solicitation could be read as requiring
   this experience, even though it did not intend this to be the case. The
   agency states that so long as the offeror demonstrated in its proposal
   that it had the capability of performing these services it should be
   considered technically acceptable. In this regard, the agency expresses
   concern that given the emphasis on experience in the solicitation,
   offerors without experience may have been discouraged from submitting
   proposals, even though they may have otherwise been able to submit
   technically acceptable proposals.

   As indicated by the above discussion, our review of the record confirms
   the agency's conclusion that the solicitation was either ambiguous with
   regard to whether experience was required, or overstated the agency's
   minimum needs by requiring experience, when, in fact, what the agency
   intended to require was for the offeror to demonstrate in its proposal
   that it had the capability of performing these services in order to be
   found acceptable.[4] While the protester states that there is no evidence
   that competition was inhibited by the potential requirement that certain
   experience was required given the large number of proposals submitted, the
   record evidences that Empire may have prepared its proposal with the
   belief that the competition was with offerors who had this experience, and
   we, therefore, find the competition may have been prejudiced by this
   ambiguity.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Starlight's protest was dismissed as untimely because it was filed
   more than 10 days after it was informed that its contract would be
   terminated.

   [2] While the agency asserts that Starlight's protest was untimely filed
   more than 10 days after it was apprised that its contract would be
   terminated, we consider the protest to be timely because it was filed
   within 10 days of when it was apprised of the reasons for the agency's
   actions. Ten days from January 19 is January 29, a Sunday; thus,
   Starlight's protest is timely. 4 C.F.R. sections 21.0(e), 21.2(a)(2)
   (2006).

   [3] While the agency asserted that this scheme was ambiguously stated in
   the RFP and this ambiguity was an additional reason for canceling the RFP,
   we find no material ambiguity.

   [4] While Starlight points to several statements in the solicitation to
   the effect that lack of past performance or experience will not
   automatically disqualify an offeror, the provisions referenced by
   Starlight relate to the past performance evaluation criterion, not the
   technical requirements evaluation criterion.