Ogden Support Services, Inc.

B-270012.4 Oct 03, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was given only a slightly higher score. This award was the subject of our decision in Ogden Support Servs. In which we sustained Ogden's protest against the award to ASC on the basis that the high evaluation rating of ASC's past performance was unsupported and thus the determination that ASC's and Ogden's proposals were technically equal. Upon which the selection of ASC's lower evaluated cost proposal was based. Was not justified. We recommended that the CIA reevaluate ASC's and Ogden's technical proposals in this respect and then determine and document whether they in fact were technically equal. [1] The CIA did not request reconsideration. If it believed that the description in the RFP of experience to be considered in evaluating past performance was too narrow. View Decision Matter of: Ogden Support Services, Inc. File: B-270012.4 Date: October 3, 1996 * Redacted Decision Agency had no reasonable basis to give a near perfect score for past performance to the proposal of the awardee of a contract for mail courier services where the record reflects the awardee had limited past performance in this area while the protester's proposal, with clearly superior past performance, was given only a slightly higher score. Attorneys DECISION Ogden Support Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to American Systems Corporation (ASC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 95-W001, issued by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Office of Information Technology, for mail and courier services. We sustain the protest. This award was the subject of our decision in Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270012.2, Mar. 19, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 177, in which we sustained Ogden's protest against the award to ASC on the basis that the high evaluation rating of ASC's past performance was unsupported and thus the determination that ASC's and Ogden's proposals were technically equal, upon which the selection of ASC's lower evaluated cost proposal was based, was not justified. Specifically, we found that the record contained insufficient information and analysis justifying ASC's near perfect rating for past performance because ASC's proposal reflected only limited experience in mail and courier and/or similar administrative support services. (The RFP called for information from offerors that "demonstrated successful performance on similar efforts" and defined "similar experience" as "providing support to similar type mail and courier efforts and/or administrative support service type efforts.") We recommended that the CIA reevaluate ASC's and Ogden's technical proposals in this respect and then determine and document whether they in fact were technically equal. [1] The CIA did not request reconsideration. Neither did it obtain additional information from the offerors before reevaluating their past performance or, if it believed that the description in the RFP of experience to be considered in evaluating past performance was too narrow, revise the RFP and request revised proposals. Instead, it instructed its same evaluators (who were not provided a copy of our decision) to reevaluate proposals, to consider only the existing documentation of past performance, and to consider experience on contracts for "maintenance, janitorial, and facilities-type services" as "similar administrative services." In accordance with these instructions, the evaluators simply confirmed ASC's near perfect score for past performance; based on the fact that the point scores did not change and that "the TMET [Technical Management Evaluation Team] report identified neither distinguishing strengths nor any weaknesses related to past performance," the CIA then confirmed the award to ASC based on ASC's and Ogden's technically equal proposals and ASC's lower evaluated cost. We sustain this protest because the CIA's actions here ignore our prior decision, the thrust of which was that the record did not support ASC's high point score for past performance and the resulting conclusion that the competing proposals were essentially equal technically. There is no new information in the record, and no new meaningful rationale to support the ASC 's past performance score or the ultimate technical equality determination. The CIA in essence did no more than reiterate its earlier conclusions. As before, we find that these conclusions lack a reasonable basis. As noted by the TMET, the mail and courier service in ASC's referenced prior contracts was only peripheral and "unlike that of the effort defined in the SOW." Moreover, as stated in our prior decision as well as the prior TMET report, only two of ASC's contracts included any meaningful mail or courier service; indeed, the prior TMET report identified this as one of the two weaknesses in ASC's proposal.