GAO Report from B-270538.2

B-270538.2 Apr 01, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's technical evaluation of an offeror's past performance of hazardous waste disposal contracts under the solicitation's past performance evaluation factor and selection of a substantially higher- price proposal for award is unreasonable where the agency did not meaningfully consider the complexity of the protester's prior contracts vis-a-vis the complexity of the contract to be awarded. Offerors were informed that proposals would be evaluated under three evaluation factors: technical. Proposals were to be evaluated on a "go/no-go" basis for compliance with stated RFP requirements. The RFP provided that the past performance factor was "the most important factor for award" and that price. View Decision Matter of: PMT Services, Inc. File: B-270538.2 Date: April 1, 1996 Agency's technical evaluation of an offeror's past performance of hazardous waste disposal contracts under the solicitation's past performance evaluation factor and selection of a substantially higher- price proposal for award is unreasonable where the agency did not meaningfully consider the complexity of the protester's prior contracts vis-a-vis the complexity of the contract to be awarded. Attorneys DECISION PMT Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Moheat Environmental Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP4400- 95-R-0016, issued by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), Defense Logistics Agency, for hazardous waste disposal services at DRMS offices in San Antonio and Fort Hood, Texas, and surrounding locations. PMT challenges the agency's evaluation of its past performance and the source selection decision. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for an 18-month base period with 2 option years. The RFP identified 120 waste pickup sites, 9 different categories of waste, and the various sizes and types of containers in which waste would be disposed of under the contract. The RFP estimated that more than 2.1 million pounds of waste would be disposed of during the base period. Offerors were informed that proposals would be evaluated under three evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and price. Under the technical factor, proposals were to be evaluated on a "go/no-go" basis for compliance with stated RFP requirements, including requirements for waste treatment, disposal, and management plans. Proposals determined technically acceptable under that factor would then be comparatively evaluated under the two remaining factors, past performance and price, to determine which offer represented the best value. The RFP provided that the past performance factor was "the most important factor for award" and that price, though significant, was "a somewhat lesser factor of importance." Offerors were also informed that past performance would be evaluated as follows: "The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror's past performance. The assessment of the offeror's past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror and the other competitors. Thus, an offeror with an exceptional record of past performance may receive a more favorable evaluation than another whose record is acceptable, even though both may have acceptable technical proposals. . . . . . "Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based on absolute standards of acceptable performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of services. . . . . . . . . "By past performance, the Government means the offeror's record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship; the offeror's adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror's reputation for reasonable and competitive behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the offeror's business-like concern for the interest of the customer. DRMS will also consider an offeror's performance on same or similar contracts in terms of waste quantities, variety of pick up locations and waste streams, performance timeframes, and complexities of the services provided." DRMS received five proposals, including those of PMT and Moheat, and all five proposals were determined to be technically acceptable and within the competitive range.