Opinion ID: 1036021
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 2011 Solicitation

Text: On January 14, 2011, the Forest Service solicited proposals for thirty-four (34) line items under Solicitation No. AG–024B–S–11–9001 (“2011 Solicitation”). The 2011 Solicitation called for a negotiated procurement process pursuant to, in part, Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15. Each line item sought heavy or medium exclusive use helicopters for large fire support, tailored for a specific host base that met the performance specifications for operation at that base. The 2011 Solicitation presented two sets of performance specifications, one applicable to contract line item numbers (“CLIN”) 1–15, and one applicable to CLINs 16–34. CLINs 1–15 sought helicopters with, at a minimum, heavy-lift capabilities (“Type I helicopters”). CLINs 16–34 sought helicopters with, at a minimum, medium-lift capabilities (“Type II helicopters”). The 2011 Solicitation informed offerors that the “[a]ward of helicopters for make and model will be based on best value. The performance requirements are a minimum and the helicopter will be evaluated for overall best value considering price and other factors. The Government will determine best value.” J.A. 20028. Offerors were also informed that the awards would “be made to those offerors whose proposals are technically acceptable and whose technical/price relationships are the most advantageous to the Government.” J.A. 20264. The 2011 Solicitation provided that “the critical factor in making any price/technical trade-off is not the spread between the technical scores, but, rather, the significance of that difference.” Id. The solicitation further provided: The significance of the spread of scores will be determined on the basis of what the difference might mean in terms of performance and what it would cost the Government to take advantage of it. Award may not necessarily be made for technical capabilities that would appear to exceed those 4 CROMAN CORPORATION v. US needed for successful performance of the work. The Government reserves the right to make price/technical trade-offs that are in the best interest and advantageous to the Government. The Government may reject any or all offers if such ac- tion is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Id. On October 4, 2011, the Forest Service received information concerning the anticipated cost of funding the solicited thirty-four (34) CLINs based upon the proposals received in response to the 2011 Solicitation. Due to budget concerns and based on previous analysis, the Forest Service re-evaluated the need for the equipment and services solicited and determined the optimum number of helicopters to be thirty (30). As a result, it was recommended that only thirty (30) of the thirty-four (34) CLINs of the 2011 Solicitation be awarded. The Technical Evaluation Team (“TET”) thus eliminated CLINs 21, 22, 27, and 34 from the evaluation process. The TET provided the following rationale for its decision in a TET Consensus Report: Due to budget constraints and the desire by the National Office to evaluate Water Scooper aircraft in FY 12, a diminution to the total amount of line items from Thirty-four (34) to Thirty (30) line items was incorporated into the TET’s consensus recommendation . . . . [A] minimum of thirty (30) helicopters with a cap of thirty four (34) was de- termined to be the most efficient and cost effective to contract as Exclusive Use . . . . Line items 21, 22, 27 & 34 were identified for reduction due to staffing issues and the aircraft locations. J.A. 20304. The cancelled CLINs 21, 22, 27, and 34 would have solicited Type I or Type II helicopters for host bases in California and Oregon. Following the cancellation of CROMAN CORPORATION v. US 5 these four CLINs, the Forest Service considered fortyseven (47) aircraft for the award of thirty (30) contracts.