IGIT, Inc., B-275299.2, June 23, 1997

B-275299.2 Jun 23, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's contention that agency conducted an unreasonable evaluation of past performance is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluation was fair. The result of the deviation was minimal and protester was not prejudiced. Protester's claim that agency failed to advise it during discussions of perceived problems with its past performance is denied where the record shows that the protester was clearly aware of the agency's concerns and shows that the agency expressly asked about protester's alleged poor performance of the earlier contract during written discussions. IGIT argues that the Army's decision to award to Penn is based on bias against IGIT. BACKGROUND This protest is the third challenge by IGIT to the Army's procurement of laundry and dry cleaning services at Fort Leonard Wood. View Decision Matter of: IGIT, Inc. File: B-275299.2 Date: June 23, 1997 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION IGIT, Inc. protests the decision of the Department of the Army to award a contract to Penn Enterprises, Inc., pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT31-95-R-0017, for laundry and dry cleaning services at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. IGIT argues that the Army's decision to award to Penn is based on bias against IGIT, which translated to an unreasonable evaluation of the past performance portion of each offeror's proposal. IGIT also claims that the Army failed to hold meaningful discussions with it regarding its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This protest is the third challenge by IGIT to the Army's procurement of laundry and dry cleaning services at Fort Leonard Wood. A brief history of the procurement is set forth below. IGIT was the incumbent contractor performing these services under a contract awarded January 31, 1995, pursuant to sealed bidding procedures. Although IGIT's initial contract was awarded for a period of 1 year with four 1-year options, the Army decided shortly after award to refrain from exercising the options. Instead, the Army issued an RFP for the services on December 10, 1995. IGIT concluded that the decision not to continue its contract after the base year period was based on improper racial bias and sought to bring the matter to the attention of its congressional representative. When the Fort Leonard Wood contracting officials became aware that IGIT had furnished its congressman an entry from the facility's internal solicitation register--showing a lump-sum government estimate for the cost of the laundry and dry cleaning services--the Army concluded that IGIT had an unfair competitive advantage over other offerors and barred the company's proposal from further consideration. IGIT protested the Army's exclusion of its proposal and claimed that the exclusion was in retaliation for IGIT's efforts to pursue its discrimination claim. While our Office did not reach the issue of racial bias, we concluded that, under the circumstances, excluding IGIT from the competition was unreasonable. We recommended that the lump-sum estimate be provided to all offerors and that IGIT be permitted to compete. IGIT, Inc., B-271823, Aug. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 51. After reinstating IGIT to the competition, the Army held written and oral discussions with the company, and permitted it to submit a best and final offer (BAFO). The competition to which IGIT was reinstated was conducted in accordance with the terms of the RFP issued on December 10, 1995. Section M of the RFP, as modified by amendment 0006, advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated for past performance, technical merit, and price. The RFP explained that the past performance evaluation factor would be significantly more important than the technical and price factors, which would be weighted equally. At the conclusion of the evaluation, both IGIT's and Penn's proposals--the only two in the competitive range--received very favorable technical scores and were viewed as essentially equal with respect to technical and price, but Penn's proposal was evaluated significantly higher under the past performance factor. [1] On October 18, 1996, Penn received award of the contract after the source selection official at Fort Leonard Wood determined that Penn's proposal offered the best value to the government. On October 28, IGIT again protested to our Office, arguing that the Army failed to conduct adequate discussions regarding certain areas of its past performance and failed to permit it to submit a revised proposal after allowing it an opportunity to comment on other areas. The protest also renewed IGIT's claim that Fort Leonard Wood contracting officials were biased against the company.