Continental Service Company

Continental Service Company BNUMBER: B-271754; B-271754.2 DATE: July 30, 1996 TITLE: Continental Service Company ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Continental Service Company File: B-271754; B-271754.2 Date:July 30, 1996 Ronald H. Uscher, Esq., Bastianelli, Brown, Touhey & Kelley, for the protester. Kim N. Haris, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester was not prejudiced by any errors that may have occurred during discussions where the record shows that even accepting the protester's contentions, and based on the protester's own calculations of the ratings it would have received following adequate discussions, its proposal's overall rating would not surpass the awardee's higher-rated, slightly lower-priced proposal. DECISION Continental Service Company protests the award of a contract to Management Engineering Associates, Inc. (MEA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0600-96-R-0006, issued by the Defense Fuel Supply Center (DFSC), Defense Logistics Agency, for operation, maintenance, security, and protection services at the Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP), Charleston, South Carolina. The protester argues that the agency failed to provide Continental with a meaningful opportunity to discuss unfavorable ratings it received related to its past performance--the only factor evaluated by the agency besides price--resulting in a flawed evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on October 27, 1995, as a total small business set-aside, and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with cost reimbursement provisions for a 3-year period. Section M of the RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated based on past performance and price. Offerors were required to submit references on three recent contracts for similar services. In evaluating past performance, the RFP stated that the agency would contact the references provided by the offerors and that the agency reserved the right also to consider any additional information it obtained on the offerors' performance by other means. The RFP explained that the agency was more interested in obtaining superior performance than low price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was deemed to represent the best value to the government considering past performance and price. Seven offerors, including the protester and the awardee, responded to the RFP by the time set on December 12 for receipt of initial proposals. As required by the RFP, Continental submitted references on three DFSC contracts the firm is currently performing at DFSP facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio; Charleston, South Carolina; and Searsport, Maine. After receipt of initial proposals, the contracting officer forwarded past performance surveys to each of Continental's three references. Each survey consisted of a series of items grouped into two parts. Part I required respondents to rate the offeror on each of 13 different statements on a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1=unsatisfactory; 2=marginal; 3=satisfactory; 4=good; 5=excellent; or "N/A"). Part II required respondents to answer either "yes" or "no" to nine questions and to explain any "yes" answer under this section. The contracting officer then calculated a point score for each offeror based on the survey responses. For each of the 13 items in part I, the contracting officer adopted the numerical rating assigned each response (e.g., a "marginal" rating on any item was worth 2 points; a "satisfactory" rating was worth 3 points, etc.). In calculating a score for part II of the survey (except for question No. 9), the contracting officer assigned a numerical rating of 2 points to any "no" response and -2 points to any "yes" response. For question No. 9 ("WOULD YOU AWARD SIMILAR CONTRACTS TO THIS CONTRACTOR?"), the contracting officer assigned a rating of 4 points for a "yes" response, and -4 points for a "no" response. The contracting officer then calculated a total score and divided that score by three to obtain an average past performance rating for each offeror.[1] By letter dated March 11, 1996, the contracting officer forwarded to the protester a document showing its proposal's numerical ratings on each survey item, on each of the three DFSC contracts reviewed. Continental submitted its comments on the ratings in a letter dated March 12.