Carson Helicopter Services, Inc.
Highlights
Carson Helicopter Services, Inc., protests the award of a contract to Croman Corporation by the Department of the Army pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W911S8-07-R-0007 for aerial wildland fire suppression services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of Croman's proposal was unreasonable because its proposed helicopter exceeded the manufacturer's allowable payload limitations.
B-299720; B-299720.2, Carson Helicopter Services, Inc., July 30, 2007
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision
Matter of: Carson Helicopter Services, Inc.
David M. Nadler, Esq., and Joseph Berger, Esq., Dickstein Shapiro LLP, for the protester.
Major ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, and Roy L. Masengale, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
On a solicitation for aerial wildland fire suppression services to be awarded to the offeror submitting the low-priced, technically acceptable proposal under which technical proposals showing compliance with specifications were required, the agency unreasonably determined that the awardee's proposed helicopter met the payload requirements, based upon statements in the proposal indicating compliance, where the proposal also contained information that should reasonably have created doubt to an evaluator familiar with helicopters whether the helicopter in fact satisfied the requirements.
DECISION
Carson Helicopter Services, Inc., protests the award of a contract to Croman Corporation by the Department of the Army pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W911S8-07-R-0007 for aerial wildland fire suppression services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of Croman's proposal was unreasonable because its proposed helicopter exceeded the manufacturer's allowable payload limitations.
Issued on January 17, 2007, the RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract covering the period of May 15 to September 30, for the exclusive use of a rotary wing aircraft capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gallons of water in a single trip to fight wildland fires within the confines of Yakima Training Center, Yakima, Washington, and fires that threaten to enter or pass through the training center. The rotary wing aircraft was required to be certified under Federal Aviation Regulation part 135 to carry passengers for reconnaissance of wildland fires. RFP amend. 4, attach. 2, at 6.
The RFP stated that the Army intended to award the contract without discussions to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal and which had satisfactory or neutral past performance. RFP, amend. 4, attach. 3, at 20. The RFP stated that the agency would determine technical acceptability by evaluating the three technical factors--management and staffing plan, type of aircraft and delivery system, and response to wildland fires--as met or not met.
With regard to the type of aircraft and delivery system factor, the RFP required that the offerors:
Describe[] the type of aircraft, lifting capability, Federal Aviation Regulation Certifications held (e.g. part 133, 135, etc.), and the type of water delivery system (e.g. bucket, tank, etc.) to include the amount of agent that can be delivered for firefighting support, and agent re-fill system (e.g. gravity, suction pump, etc.). Meets all PWS specifications and convinces the Government that the contractor can adequately meet the requirement.
The aircraft shall have a minimum capacity to deliver 1,000 gallons of water by bucket or fixed tank in a single trip. The contractor shall operate the aircraft safely and efficiently carrying 1,000 gallons of water at 15 degrees Celsius, 29.92 altimeter setting at 1,500 feet above sea level, and carry at least 1.5 hours worth of fuel.
RFP, amend. 4, attach. 2 at 6. Where a water bucket was to be used on the helicopter, the PWS provided that the contractor was to determine the helicopter's allowable payload in accordance with the aircraft manufacturer's operation and maintenance requirements, assuming 8.35 pounds per gallon of water.
Three proposals were received in response to the RFP. The proposals of Carson and Croman each received acceptable technical ratings and satisfactory past performance ratings.[1] The source selection officer concluded that Croman, as the offeror with the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal with satisfactory past performance should receive the award. AR, Tab 14, Source Selection Decision.
Croman proposed a modified Sikorsky S-61N long body helicopter, AR, Tab 9, Croman's Proposal, at 9; Tab 20, Contracting Officer's Verification of Information, at 1-2. Croman's proposal described its proposed helicopter and compliance with the PWS requirements as follows:
The S-61N is Type Certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration and has Standard Airworthiness certificate. The S-61N has a total gross weight of 22,000 pounds. The aircraft proposed for this Yakima Training Facility has an empty weight of 11,121 pounds which results in a total payload of 10,879 pounds. Deducting the weight of the pilots (400 pounds), fuel for 1.5 hours for flight time (1,508 pounds), the bucket (650 pounds)[2] the allowable payload for water is 8,362 pounds (1,001 gallons).
AR, Tab 9, Croman's Proposal at 9. Croman's proposal also included a Load Calculation Work Sheet that shows how the actual allowable payload for water was calculated; this work sheet shows, among other things, a 22,000-pound computed maximum gross weight. The proposal also included a Croman Corporation S-61N Performance Chart to show how the 22,000-pound maximum gross weight was calculated; this chart is a marked up page from the Sikorsky Aircraft S-61N Flight Manual entitled S-61N EXTERNAL LOADS MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT FOR HOVERING IN GROUND EFFECT--10-FOOT WHEEL HEIGHT. AR, Tab 9, Croman's Proposal, at 9-10.
On April 5,
The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. Maritime Berthing, Inc., B-284123.3,
As stated above, both Croman's and Carson's proposals indicate that their proposed helicopters have the ability to transport a payload of 1,000 gallons of water as required by the RFP.[5] In a hearing held in connection with this protest, the agency evaluator, a fire chief, testified that in evaluating the proposals of Croman and Carson he basically just checked the arithmetic in each proposal to ensure that each helicopter provided for a payload of at least 1,000 gallons for the proposed helicopters, and determined that the proposals were acceptable in this respect. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 21-24.
As pointed out by
The in ground effect and out of ground effect are important aspects of a helicopter's operations. For example, as relevant to this protest, these effects must be taken into account to measure a helicopter's load capabilities while hovering, depending on which effect is applicable to the particular operation of the helicopter. Essentially, a helicopter needs less power and can operate more efficiently when operating in ground effect because this allows for more vertical lift and less induced drag as a result of operating close to the ground. In contrast, more power is needed when operating out of ground. Thus, where the in ground effect is applicable, a helicopter can generally carry more weight than where this effect is not applicable. See Tr. at 76 (testimony of former Sikorsky test pilot); see also Westec Air, Inc., B'230724,
By its own terms, Sikorsky's in ground effect performance chart included in Croman's proposal is only applicable when the distance from the bottom of the helicopter tires to the ground is 10 feet or less. AR, Tab 9, Croman's Proposal, at 11; Tr. at 77-78. That is, if the bottom of the helicopter's tires is more than 10 feet off the ground, then the out of ground effect performance chart applies. Tr. at 80. The agency's technical evaluator testified that the cargo bucket proposed by Croman to carry the water is approximately 8 feet tall, and is attached to the helicopter by a line approximately 150 feet long. Tr. at 54-55. Thus, when the helicopter is hovering with the bucket lifted off the ground, the helicopter would be approximately 160 to 175 feet off the ground. Tr. at 56.
Under such circumstances, the record indicates that Sikorsky's out of ground effect performance chart, rather than its in ground effect chart, would be applicable to Croman's proposed helicopter.[7] Tr. at 85'86. According to the protester, this out of ground effect chart indicates a maximum gross weight under the operating parameters described in the PWS of 20,000 pounds or less. Protester's Comments at 5; see AR, Tab 21, S'61N EXTERNAL LOADS MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT FOR HOVERING OUT OF GROUND EFFECT. Regardless of the accuracy of the protester's calculations here, the record indicates that the calculated maximum gross weight using the out of ground effect chart would be significantly less than 22,000 pounds, and Croman's proposed helicopter, which was only claimed by Croman to have the capability of transporting a maximum 1,001 gallons of water using the in ground effect performance chart, would thus not have the demonstrated payload capability, consistent with the manufacturer's operation and maintenance requirements, of transporting 1,000 pounds of water.
The agency argues that these Sikorsky charts are not controlling or necessarily an accurate reflection of the helicopter's true maximum gross weight because, as admitted by
In sum, the record here reflects that the agency unreasonably determined that Croman's helicopter had the required lifting capability and complied with the PWS requirements. While Croman's proposal indicated compliance with the payload requirements, the calculations included in the proposal to demonstrate compliance were inappropriately based on the manufacturer's in ground effect performance chart as could have been ascertained by a reasonable review of the proposal by an evaluator or other individual familiar with helicopters, and the record shows that if the out of ground effect chart applicable here were used, Croman's helicopter would not satisfy the RFP's payload requirements. Thus, there was significant countervailing evidence that was, or should have been, reasonably known to the agency evaluators that should reasonably have created doubt whether the offeror could comply with that requirement. Mine Safety Appliances Co.; Interspiro, Inc., supra. While we acknowledge that the agency evaluators did not recognize this issue during the evaluation because of their apparent lack of helicopter expertise,[9] and still did not realize the significance of this issue when they investigated Carson's pre-award protest of this issue, it appears that a reasonable evaluation of the technical proposals by an evaluator familiar with helicopters reasonably would have created doubt whether Croman's helicopter in fact satisfied the RFP payload requirements, notwithstanding its proposal's indication that it did. We therefore sustain the protest on this basis.[10]
We recommend that the agency terminate Croman's contract, if feasible, in which case the agency should make award of the remainder of the contract to
In the event that termination is not feasible, we recommend that
The protests are sustained.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] The other offeror's proposal was found unacceptable because it proposed to perform the work with two helicopters each carrying 530 gallons of water. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, Individual Evaluation Summary at 1.
[2] The bucket is to be used to transport the water in Croman's helicopter. The 650'pound figure is a typographical error, and as otherwise indicated in Croman's proposal, and by totaling the figures reported here, should read 610 pounds. AR, Tab 9, Croman's Proposal, at 9-10; AR, Tab 19, Croman Letter (
[3] The protester asserts that our Office cannot consider disruption or costs in making our recommendation where we sustain a protest and where the agency has made only a best interest override. See 31 U.S.C. sect. 3554(b)(2) (2000). However, the agency here also determined that the override was necessary because of urgent and compelling circumstances, and this basis does not constrain what our Office can recommend.
[4] The Army claims that this issue was untimely raised and that the additional arguments raised by
The Army also asserts that our Office should dismiss the protests because
[5] In fact, the calculations in Croman's proposal reflect that its helicopter's maximum available payload was 1,001 gallons of water. Thus, any adjustment to the calculations could affect its successfully demonstrating its compliance with the payload requirement.
[6] A former Sikorsky helicopter test pilot, who testified on
[7] In investigating
[8] The protester has provided evidence that where, as here, bucket operations are conducted with helicopters, the helicopters out of ground effect capability is what needs to be measured. Protester's Supplemental Comments (June 22, 2007) at 13-14. For example, the
The following procedures shall be used for all bucket operations:Determine allowable payload using the Interagency Load Calculation Method, appropriate HOGE [hover out of ground effect] helicopter charts and current local temperature and pressure altitude.
[9] Even though the RFP requested technical proposals showing the helicopter's compliance with the technical requirements, including the requirement at issue here, the evaluator that the agency chose to use to evaluate proposals for this procurement had no aviation background. Tr. at 35-36. For example, the evaluator testified that when he was evaluating the proposals he never noticed that Croman's proposal used an in ground effect chart, and that
[10] Carson has alleged a number of other errors in Croman's calculation of its helicopter's payload capacity (for example, the amount of fuel needed for a 1-hour mission), which issues we need not address in view of our determination above that Croman's helicopter was not shown to have met this requirement.
[11] Besides the fact that Croman's helicopter does not comply with the RFP PWS requirements, Croman did not provide the helicopter at the start of the contract, primarily because it was in pieces in
In its dismissal request proposing corrective action, the agency stated that it would take the corrective action of reimbursing the protester its proposal preparation costs and its costs of pursuing the protests, but would not disturb the award for the reasons stated above.