Voices R Us, B-274802.2, December 24, 1997

B-274802.2 Dec 24, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Discussions in the area of past performance were adequate where agency identified the categories of concern with protester's prior performance and provided an opportunity to address those concerns. That its ranking under the solicitation's past performance criterion would have been better had it had an opportunity to respond to the agency's concerns. Firms were advised that proposals would be evaluated for compliance with the RFP's technical specifications and would be assigned a performance risk rating based on the agency's assessment of the offerors' past performance on similar contracts. Firms were to provide a minimum of three references for similar prior contracts. VRU's proposal was found to be incomplete because the firm had not included information relating to prior contracts. View Decision Matter of: Voices R Us File: B-274802.2 Date: December 24, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Voices R Us (VRU) protests the award of a contract to Western Environmental Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33659-96- R-7502, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the installation of an environmental monitoring system. VRU maintains that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions, and that its ranking under the solicitation's past performance criterion would have been better had it had an opportunity to respond to the agency's concerns. We deny the protest. The RFP sought fixed-priced offers to install an environmental monitoring system at the agency's metrology laboratories in Heath, Ohio. Firms were advised that proposals would be evaluated for compliance with the RFP's technical specifications and would be assigned a performance risk rating based on the agency's assessment of the offerors' past performance on similar contracts. As part of their proposals, firms were to provide a minimum of three references for similar prior contracts. The agency received several offers in response to the RFP. VRU's proposal was found to be incomplete because the firm had not included information relating to prior contracts. After being contacted several times by the agency concerning the matter, VRU submitted references relating to six earlier contracts. The agency reviewed the submitted references and, after contacting each one, determined that five were for contracts that were not sufficiently similar to the requirement being solicited; these were contracts for computer configuration and installation requirements as opposed to the installation of test or monitoring equipment. The agency found VRU's remaining reference, a Department of the Navy contract for the installation of computer link-ups for test stands and other measurement equipment, relevant. After contacting the Navy and obtaining a written review of VRU's performance on the prior contract, the agency evaluators assigned a high risk rating to VRU's proposal. The Navy's written review provided that VRU's performance had been deficient in numerous respects--including the areas of timely performance, adequate communication between the contractor and agency personnel, cost control, compliance with contract terms (such as agreed-upon labor rates and the provision of adequate staffing)--and that the protester overall lacked business experience. The Navy concluded by describing VRU's performance as "a nightmare." The agency sent VRU a discussion letter stating that its proposal had been found deficient under the past performance criterion in the areas of quality, delivery of goods and services, and management of projects. The letter went on to state that the agency's past performance review encompassed consideration of the offeror's record of conforming to purchase descriptions and contract schedules, good workmanship and commitment to customer satisfaction, and reasonable and cooperative behavior during contract performance. VRU did not respond to the agency's discussion letter. After this round of discussions, the agency (in response to an unrelated bid protest to our Office) amended the RFP and solicited best and final offers. The Air Force provided VRU another opportunity to respond to its concerns regarding its past performance. In this second letter the agency was still more specific. The Air Force noted that VRU's negative past performance rating was based on its performance of the Navy contract and went on to state that the agency's review showed problems in the areas of quality of workmanship, management control, timely completion of contract schedules, system reliability, and ease of use. VRU chose to respond to the agency's letter during this round of discussions, providing an explanation of its performance during the Navy contract.