Protest that the agency misevaluated the awardee’s technical proposal is denied, where the agency concluded the awardee offered a reasonable approach to transporting personnel injured during training exercises, and GAO would not substitute its judgment for that of the agency’s technical experts.
Global Asset Technology LLC protested the Air Force’s award of a free fall training contract to Tactical Air Operations LLC, arguing that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s proposal as meeting the requirements of the solicitation’s performance work statement.
GAT argued that the agency improperly evaluated TAO’s proposal under the integrated operations subfactor because TAO failed to comply with the emergency support requirements of the solicitation’s PWS. Specifically, the protester alleged that TAO lacks the ability to transport patients from its advanced training facility to definitive care within 90 minutes after an injury, and that the agency failed to evaluate and document whether TAO’s proposal demonstrated such capability.
TAO’s proposal identified one fire station and multiple medical trauma centers within a certain range of its training center, as well as anticipated flight and driving times. TAO also noted that it intended to request a waiver for on-site services because of the number of emergency resources that were available within close proximity to the airfields and drop zones. Further, TAO’s proposal identified how the company intended to respond to inflight and drop zone emergencies by laying out a plan which identified the various minimum steps to be taken in various emergency situations.
The agency found this approach reasonable, and GAO identified no reasons to question the agency’s judgment. While GAT argued that TAO’s proposal failed to demonstrate that patients can be transported to a definitive care facility within 90 minutes after an injury because it contains no information about the time needed to report the injury, contact the dispatcher, and conduct triage, but GAO found no reference in the solicitation or PWS that this information was required.
GAT argued that it was insufficient for TAO to provide only flight and drive times, but GAO noted that the agency is responsible for defining its needs and identifying the best method for accommodating them. Particularly where matters of human life and safety are involved, GAO will afford considerable deference to the judgment of the agency’s technical experts.
Global Asset Technology LLC is represented by William K. Walker of Walker Reausaw. The government is represented by Isabelle P. Cutting and Alexis J. Bernstein, Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Young S. Lee and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.