TITLE: B-298240.2, Kolob Canyons Air Service, July 11, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298240.2
DATE: July 11, 2006
****************************************************
B-298240.2, Kolob Canyons Air Service, July 11, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Kolob Canyons Air Service

   File: B-298240.2

   Date: July 11, 2006

   Jeff Obering for the protester.

   Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, PC, for Courtney Aviation,
   Inc., an intervenor.

   Mark G. Garrett, Esq., U.S. Forest Service, for the agency.

   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq.,
   Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
   decision.

   DIGEST

   Exclusion of protester's offer from competitive range as technically
   unacceptable was unobjectionable where agency reasonably concluded that
   protester's offered planes did not meet solicitation's avionics
   requirements or provide sufficiently detailed plans for making planes
   compliant with those requirements.

   DECISION

   Kolob Canyons Air Service protests its exclusion from the competitive
   range, and the award of a contract to Courtney Aviation, Inc., under
   request for proposals (RFP) No. R5-06-20-001, issued by the Department of
   Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, for aircraft in support of air attack
   operations.

   We deny the protest.

   The Forest Service is responsible for protecting National Forest lands
   from wild land fires, and also assists in protecting other jurisdictions.
   To ensure the efficiency and safety of aviation operations, the agency
   deploys tactical aircraft to serve as platforms for air attack
   supervisors, which coordinate the use of airspace above incidents and
   disasters to ensure that air operations accomplish the objectives of the
   incident commander on the ground. These aircraft operate in very complex
   environments and must provide a communication capability for multiple
   contacts on the ground and in the air. The RFP contemplated the award of a
   requirements contract for light aircraft to support this mission and to
   provide other flight services for administrative purposes, including law
   enforcement and transport of personnel and/or cargo.

   The solicitation provided for award to be made to the offeror or offerors
   whose conforming proposals were considered most advantageous to the
   government, and advised that award would be made on the basis of initial
   proposals. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and three
   capability factors--aircraft acceptability (including avionics), past
   performance, and maintenance. (Capability and past performance, combined,
   were approximately equal in weight to price.) Offerors were specifically
   advised that "[q]uoted aircraft must meet the minimum requirements stated
   in the Solicitation." RFP sect. M.1. Relevant to this protest, the RFP
   included a number of mandatory aircraft avionics requirements, including a
   requirement for audio control systems to monitor the six radios--three
   VHF-AM and three VHF-FM--to be installed in each aircraft.

   Kolob and Courtney were among several offerors that submitted proposals.
   In evaluating Kolob's proposal, the agency determined that the current
   avionics configuration of Kolob's proposed aircraft did not meet the
   solicitation's avionics requirements, resulting in a total of 13
   discrepancies, and that Kolob's proposal did not include a plan describing
   how the aircraft would comply with the avionics requirements. Based on
   this evaluation, the contracting officer determined that Kolob's proposal
   was technically unacceptable, and excluded it from the competitive range.
   Kolob thereupon filed this protest.

   Kolob asserts that the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive
   range was improper. Specifically, while its aircraft radio package as
   currently configured did not meet the avionics requirements, Kolob
   maintains that its proposal adequately explained how all radios would be
   configured to meet the avionics requirements prior to the contract start.

   In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and subsequent
   competitive range determination, we will not evaluate the proposals anew
   in order to make our own determination of their acceptability or relative
   merits; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the
   documented evaluation was fair, reasonable, and consistent with the
   evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations. See
   Ervin & Assocs., Inc., B-280993, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 151 at 3.
   The record here shows that the agency reasonably determined Kolob's
   proposal to be technically unacceptable.

   The solicitation generally required that each proposal include a detailed
   work plan indicating how each aspect of the statement of work would be
   accomplished, and specifically required with regard to avionics that the
   proposal include a completed questionnaire, which called for provision of
   "photographs and narrative description of instrument panels, consoles, and
   antennas for all stations, or [provision of] the general layout and plan
   for the proposed avionics systems." RFP at 80. The agency determined that
   Kolob's proposal failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate
   either that its aircraft currently complied with all of the avionics
   requirements or how its aircraft would be made compliant.

   For example, the RFP required that each aircraft have an audio control
   system with an audio indicator panel (ACS-296) mounted on the forward
   observer's instrument panel to monitor the six required radios. RFP at 34.
   The agency explains, in this regard, that the ACS-296 provides the
   necessary visual indication system to allow the monitoring of, sorting
   through, and responding to the high volume of radio traffic that may be
   received on the aircraft's six radios. Contracting Officer's Statement
   at 2. As noted by the agency, Kolob's proposal did not show an installed
   ACS-296 panel in any of the planes it proposed; rather, in its response to
   the avionics questionnaire, Kolob simply referred to its "attached photo
   of panel layout." Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, at 251. Kolob asserts that
   the two photographs provided clearly showed where the ACS-296 is to be
   located. However, neither of the photographs shows an installed ACS-296,
   and only one even indicates where the panel is to be installed. Moreover,
   as the protester concedes, neither photograph depicts any of the planes
   Kolob was proposing. Kolob Final Comments at 1. Furthermore, Kolob's
   proposal did not include an explanation of how and by what process its
   aircraft would be upgraded to include the ACS-296.[1] The agency concluded
   that Kolob's proposal failed to establish that its proposed aircraft would
   meet the RFP's ACS-296 requirement. This determination was reasonable.

   The solicitation also required installation of various push-to-talk (PTT)
   switches for the radio transmitter and intercom at each observer position,
   including a floor mounted PTT intercom switch for the forward observer.
   RFP sect. C.4.3.2.1.F(3). The agency found that neither the photographs
   nor the narrative in Kolob's proposal addressed this requirement. Kolob
   maintains that the agency's finding was unreasonable, asserting that its
   proposal explained and outlined all aspects of the radio configuration;
   that its aircraft have the required switches; and that its proposed
   aircraft have been used under other Forest Service contracts with the same
   equipment requirements.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. Notwithstanding the RFP
   requirement that offerors indicate how each aspect of the statement of
   work was to be accomplished, the record confirms that, as found by the
   agency, Kolob's proposal did not specifically address the forward
   observer's floor switch. In this regard, offerors are responsible for
   submitting an adequately written proposal, and run the risk that their
   proposals will be evaluated unfavorably where they fail to do so. Carlson
   Wagonlit Travel, B-287016, Mar. 6, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 49 at 3. While
   Kolob's proposal generally indicated that it complies with "other radio
   requirements as outline[d] in [RFP] Section C4.3," entitled "Aircraft
   Avionics Requirements," Proposal sect. 2, this blanket statement did not
   meet the RFP requirement for an explanation. Likewise, the fact that
   Kolob's aircraft have been used under other Forest Service contracts with
   the same equipment requirements did not compel the agency to find its
   proposal acceptable here. Each federal procurement stands alone; the
   agency's acceptance of a proposal as acceptable under a prior procurement
   does not require the agency to find the proposal acceptable under the
   present procurement. Career Quest, Inc., B-292865, B-292865.2, Dec. 10,
   2003, 2004 CPD para. 4 at 5-6. Thus, the agency reasonably determined that
   Kolob's proposal also failed to meet the RFP requirement for a forward
   observer's floor switch.

   Since we find that the agency reasonably determined that Kolob's proposal
   failed to include sufficient information to establish that it met these
   and other avionics requirements, we conclude that the agency reasonably
   eliminated Kolob's proposal from the competitive range as technically
   unacceptable.

   Kolob also challenges the award on the basis that the agency failed to
   account for the fact that its proposal was lower in price than the
   proposal submitted by the awardee. However, in view of the fact that
   Kolob's proposal was reasonably determined to be technically unacceptable,
   the protester's assertion that it should have been awarded the contract on
   the basis of its price is without merit; a technically unacceptable
   proposal cannot be considered for award, notwithstanding its lower
   proposed price. TEAM Support Servs., Inc., B-279379.2, June 22, 1998,
   98-1 CPD para. 167 at 9.  

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Kolob asserts that it would have clarified its proposal with regard to
   the ACS-296 had the agency asked it about that system. However, there
   generally is no obligation for an agency to conduct discussions where, as
   here, the RFP specifically instructs offerors that award may be made on
   the basis of initial proposals. Colmek Sys. Eng'g, B-291931.2, July 9,
   2003, 2003 CPD para. 123 at 7. An agency is not precluded from awarding on
   an initial proposal basis merely because an unacceptable lower-priced
   offer might be made acceptable through discussions. Integration Techs.
   Group, Inc., B-274288.5, June 13, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 214 at 6. We find
   no circumstances here that call into question the agency's decision not to
   engage in discussions with Kolob.