Kay & Associates, Inc.

B-291269, Kay & Associates, Inc., December 11, 2002

Decision

Matter of: Kay & Associates, Inc.

File: B-291269

Date: December 11, 2002

Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., and Grace Bateman, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw, for the protester.
Douglas M. Flinn, Esq., Sherman & Howard, for Doss Aviation, Inc., an intervenor.
Andrew D. Fallon, Esq., and Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency's evaluation record reasonably supports evaluation of awardee's past performance record as [deleted] and protester's past performance record as [deleted].

2. Agency reasonably concluded that awardee's higher past performance rating was more valuable to the government than protester's somewhat lower price.

DECISION

Kay and Associates, Inc. (KAI) protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Doss Aviation, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F05604-01-R-9004 to provide helicopter maintenance services at various Air Force bases. KAI protests that the agency improperly evaluated Doss's and KAI's past performance, and failed to perform a reasonable tradeoff between price and past performance.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2002, the agency issued solicitation No. F05604-01-R-9004 seeking proposals to perform helicopter maintenance on UH-1N helicopters at five Air Force bases in the United States and Japan.[1] The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for a 1-year base period and six 1-year option periods. The solicitation required each offeror to submit a price proposal, technical proposal, and past performance information,[2] provided that technical proposals would be evaluated only on a pass/fail basis, and advised offerors that, with regard to technically acceptable proposals, award selection would be based on a tradeoff between price and past performance. Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 125.

Regarding evaluation of past performance, the solicitation provided that the agency would assign confidence assessment ratings pursuant to the provisions of Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.305(a)(2),[3] and stated that the ratings assigned would reflect consideration of the offerors' past performance in the following six areas: maintenance of similar types of aircraft; maintenance and management support for missions demanding quick turnaround with short notice; maintenance and management support at multiple sites, in varying climates, with substantial workload fluctuations; employee hiring, training and retention; participation of small disadvantaged business concerns; and corrective actions taken from past experience. RFP at 126.

On or before the April 12, 2002 closing date, proposals were submitted by nine offerors. In evaluating past performance, the agency reviewed the completed questionnaires, considered information contained in the performance assessment reporting system (CPARS), and conducted telephone interviews with government personnel who had oversight of the various contracts identified by the offerors. Agency Report, Tab 14, Proposal Analysis Report, at 4. Ultimately, the agency sought final proposal revisions (FPRs) from four offerors, including KAI and Doss.[4] The agency's final evaluation resulted in the following assessments: