Simulator Snafu: Protester’s Late Challenge Grounded by GAO

The protester challenged its exclusion from a task order competition for training systems support services, arguing the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion by refusing to count experience on a stationary simulator toward a “full flight simulator” experience requirement. The protester alternatively argued the solicitation was ambiguous about when the required capabilities had to be physically present on the device. GAO dismissed the protest as untimely, finding the protester’s challenge was effectively a challenge to the solicitation’s terms. Challenges to solicitation improprieties apparent before the closing date for proposals must be filed before that date—not after learning the agency’s interpretation through a debriefing.

Aero Simulation, Inc., GAO, B-424444

• Background – The Air Force issued a fair opportunity proposal request under its Training Systems Acquisition IV IDIQ contract for C-17 training systems support services. The solicitation required offerors to demonstrate corporate experience executing engineering change proposals (ECPs) on at least five full flight simulators (FFSs) of the same device type, and defined an FFS as a device with six-axis motion, specific visual systems, and dynamic control loading. The protester submitted experience that included a systems integration lab (SIL) whose motion legs had been removed years earlier, so it did not move. The agency assigned the proposal a low confidence rating and excluded it from further consideration. This protest followed.
• Unstated Evaluation Criterion – The protester argued the agency applied an unstated “temporal and operational requirement” by demanding that six-axis motion hardware be physically installed and operational at the time each ECP was executed. GAO disagreed. Reading the solicitation as a whole, the FFS definition plainly required six-axis motion and equipment “necessary to represent aircraft operations in flight conditions.” A device without six-axis motion simply was not an FFS—regardless of whether it once had been or could theoretically be reconfigured to become one. The agency’s interpretation flowed directly from the solicitation’s plain text, not from any hidden criterion.
• Solicitation Ambiguity – The protester alternatively claimed the solicitation was ambiguous about when the FFS capabilities needed to be present. GAO rejected this argument as well. An ambiguity exists only where two or more reasonable interpretations are possible. Here, the protester’s interpretation—that a device qualified as an FFS based on past or potential future capabilities—was not reasonable because it ignored the solicitation’s clear definitional requirements.
• Timeliness – The record showed the protester actually recognized the potential conflict before proposals were due. During the draft solicitation phase, the protester submitted a question asking whether its stationary SIL would qualify and requesting that the agency either adjust the six-axis criteria or reduce the required device count. The agency declined to answer. Rather than filing a pre-closing protest to resolve the issue, the protester proceeded with the competition, apparently assuming the agency would adopt its preferred interpretation. GAO held that the protester “made such an assumption at its own peril.” Challenges to solicitation improprieties apparent before the closing date must be filed before that date. Filed nearly two months after the March 3 closing date, the protest was untimely.

The protester was represented by J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., Jacob D. Noe, Esq., and Tariq Abdel Wakil, Esq., of Reaves GovCon Group. The government was represented by Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., and Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Esq., of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., participated in the decision.