Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Unduly restrictive RFP terms; national security; human safety
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Where a protester challenges specifications in an RFP as unduly restrictive of competition, GAO will review the record to determine whether the restrictions imposed are reasonably related to the agency’s needs. Where a requirement relates to national defense or human safety, an agency has the discretion to define solicitation requirements to achieve not just reasonable results, but the highest possible reliability and/or effectiveness.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Airforce Turbine Services, Ltd. (ATS) protests the terms of a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS), for aircraft engine maintenance and overhaul services.
FS issued the RFP for aircraft maintenance and overhaul services of Pratt & Whitney engines installed on FS aircraft used in fighting forest fires. The RFP included the requirement that contractors are Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified and be a designated overhaul facility (DOF) to perform work on specific Pratt & Whitney aircraft engine model numbers. Each offeror was required to present valid evidence of current authority to perform work on the listed engines, and only offerors that were certified DOFs were eligible for award.
ATS, which is not a DOF, asserts that the requirement that offerors be certified DOFs is unduly restrictive of competition. GAO states that the determination of a contracting agency’s needs and the best method of accommodating them are matters primarily within the agency’s discretion. However, where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive of competition, GAO will review the record to determine whether the restrictions imposed are reasonably related to the agency’s needs. Where a requirement relates to national defense or human safety, an agency has the discretion to define solicitation requirements to achieve not just reasonable results, but the highest possible reliability and/or effectiveness. Ultimately, a protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment concerning its needs and how to accommodate them does not show that the agency’s judgment is unreasonable.
The agency explains that its needs are for its aircraft and engines to be ready to perform mission critical tasks, such as fighting forest fires. The agency states that it is necessary to restrict this procurement to only DOFs because only DOFs provide the “unique combination” of a streamlined warranty process and minimized downtime necessary to get fire fighting planes back into the air. DOFs provide “crucial support” to overhaul and repair the engines that is not offered elsewhere. GAO finds no reason why the agency should not be permitted to adopt a requirement aimed at ensuring the highest level of reliability and availability of its aircraft, particularly in light of the need to fulfill its fire fighting mission. The protest is denied.