Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation as unduly restrictive is denied. The protester contended that only the incumbent could receive a “very relevant” rating under the solicitation’s corporate experience and past performance factors. But just because criteria favor an incumbent does not make them unreasonable. What’s more, even if offerors could not receive a very relevant rating, they were not precluded from receiving the contract. The protester also argued that the corporate experience and past performance criteria were too restrictive because the agency would only consider the experience of an entity, not of individual employees. GAO found, however, that the protester had not explained how this restriction inhibited competition.
The Navy issued a solicitation seeking a contractor who could operate an aircraft that simulated airborne threats to test and evaluate weapons systems. The RFP provided that offerors would be evaluated based, in part, on their corporate experience and past performance. Only the experience of a legal entity, as opposed to individual personnel, would be considered. Additionally, to achieve a “very relevant” rating under the corporate experience and past performance factors, offerors had to show that they had performed contracts operating an aircraft over water 100 miles from shore in support of military operations. Those contracts had to have a threshold value of at least $25 million.
Flight Support, Inc. filed a protest challenging the terms of the solicitation. Flight Support argued that only the incumbent could have the corporate experience/past performance examples that would qualify as “very relevant.” But GAO reasoned that the fact that evaluation criteria provide an advantage to an incumbent that has the precise experience required under the contract does not make the criteria objectionable. Flight Support had not explained how the RFP’s definition of “very relevant” exceeded the Navy’s requirements or how it prevented the company from submitting a proposal. Indeed, offerors did not have to obtain a very relevant rating under the corporate experience and past performance factors to receive the contract.
Flight Support also argued that the corporate experience factor was overly restrictive because it required the experience to have been obtained by the firm and not by individual personnel. The Navy explained that it included this provision due to the limited number of personnel that actually possess the required experience. Requiring corporate experience rather than individual experience would allow entities to demonstrate their experience even if their employees had left for jobs with other companies. What’s more, the agency argued, organizational experience is a better predictor of future performance.
GAO found that Flight Support offered no meaningful rebuttal to the Navy’s position. It had not explained how the agency’s approach did not foster competition. Additionally, the company did not explain why the agency’s conclusion that organizational experience was a better predictor of future performance was unreasonable.
Flight Support further argued that the Navy had set an arbitrary value of $1.8 million for contracts to be deemed “somewhat relevant” under the corporate experience and past performance factors. GAO found the agency had reasonably set the amount based on market research showing recent orders for $1.9 million.
Flight Support is represented by Daniel Weckstein, Anthony J. Mazzeo, and Vania Ratliff of Vandeventer Black. The intervenor, is represented by J. Alex Ward, W. Jay DeVecchio, R. Locke Bell, and Alissandra D. Young of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The agency is represented by Michael T. Genchi, Robin Ray Coll, Jason Nelson, Stephanie Polk, and Karissa Johnson of the U.S. Navy. GAO attorneys Scott H. Riback and Tania Calhounparticipated in the preparation of the decision.
