Matter of:ST Aerospace Engines Pte. Ltd.

B-275725 Mar 19, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Because the affiliate's negative past performance was the determinative factor in the decision not to award to protester. Agency was required to raise the issue with the protester during discussions. The protester contends that its proposal was improperly downgraded based on negative past performance information pertaining to one of its affiliates that had not been discussed with it. Technical proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of the following five factors. Offerors were instructed to furnish references regarding their performance of the same or similar work. Were included in the competitive range. Which was [DELETED] in price and which had received a technical rating of [DELETED] and a risk assessment of [DELETED]. View Decision Matter of: ST Aerospace Engines Pte. Ltd. File: B-275725 Date: March 19, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION ST Aerospace Engines Pte. Ltd. (STA Engines) protests the award of a contract to Standard Aero Ltd. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG38-94-R-30006, issued by the U. S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation, for the overhaul and repair of C-130 T56 engine reduction gearboxes and torquemeters. The protester contends that its proposal was improperly downgraded based on negative past performance information pertaining to one of its affiliates that had not been discussed with it. We sustain the protest. The RFP sought offers for the overhaul and repair of the reduction gearboxes and torquemeters used in the T56 engines aboard Coast Guard C-130 aircraft. The solicitation provided for award to the responsible offeror whose combination of technical merit and proposed price represented the greatest value to the government, with the former carrying greater weight in the selection process than the latter. Technical proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of the following five factors, listed in descending order of importance: past performance, certification, industrial capacity/capability, warranty, and engineering and support capability. To permit evaluation of their past performance, offerors were instructed to furnish references regarding their performance of the same or similar work, data concerning any quality deficiency problems encountered under earlier related contracts, and data concerning their percentage of on-time deliveries under the earlier contracts. Nine offerors submitted proposals. The proposals of six firms, including STA Engines, were included in the competitive range, and the agency conducted two rounds of discussions with each of the six. Upon completion of the discussions, the source evaluation board (SEB) concluded that Standard Aero's proposal, which was [DELETED] in price and which had received a technical rating of [DELETED] and a risk assessment of [DELETED], represented the best value to the government. The agency then awarded a contract to Standard Aero. In selecting Standard Aero's proposal for award, the Coast Guard concluded that its combination of technical merit and price represented a better value to the government than STA Engines's proposal, which was [DELETED] in price and had received a technical rating of [DELETED] and a risk assessment of [DELETED]. [1] The evaluators explained that they had not selected STA Engines for award primarily due to concerns regarding the firm's past record for on-time delivery. In this connection, the SEB noted that although STA Engines's past performance "was for the most part considered good," the offeror had been consistently and significantly late on delivery of overhauled material under a separate ongoing Coast Guard contract for propeller overhaul and repair. The protester contends that it was improper for the agency to attribute this negative performance data to it, because it had no involvement in the contract in question, which was being performed by one of its affiliates, ST Aerospace Systems (STA Systems). In this regard, the protester maintains that although STA Engines and STA Systems are owned by the same parent holding company, ST Aerospace, they are distinct entities with completely separate facilities, management, and work forces. The protester further argues that by failing to bring this negative information pertaining to its affiliate's past performance to its attention during discussions, the agency violated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.610(c)(6), which requires that an offeror be given an opportunity to discuss any negative past performance information obtained from references on which the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to comment.