TMI Services, Inc., B-276624.2, July 9, 1997

B-276624.2 Jul 09, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's contention that agency evaluation of past performance is unreasonable is denied where the agency performed a new past performance review in response to the initial protest filing. Protester does not acknowledge the amended review or provide any basis to conclude that the evaluation is unreasonable. That the Navy's past performance evaluation was unreasonable. Should have been selected for award. The evaluation scheme stated that past performance would be more important than price unless the competing proposals were rated equally in the area of past performance. The protester's and Selrico's BAFOs were ranked as follows: TMI's proposal had the lowest price and a past performance rating of marginal. View Decision Matter of: TMI Services, Inc. File: B-276624.2 Date: July 9, 1997 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION TMI Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Selrico Services, Inc. by the Department of the Navy, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N00604-96-R-0052, seeking mess attendant services to clean the dining halls and serve food at the Navy Submarine Base Galley, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. TMI claims, in general, that the Navy's past performance evaluation was unreasonable, and that TMI, not Selrico, should have been selected for award. We deny the protest. The Navy issued the RFP on September 19, 1996, as a total small business set-aside. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price contract with a base period and three 1-year options to the offeror whose technically acceptable proposal presented the best value to the government, considering past performance and price. The evaluation scheme stated that past performance would be more important than price unless the competing proposals were rated equally in the area of past performance, in which case price would be the determining factor. The Navy received 17 proposals, and performed several initial reviews--for reasons not relevant here--before including 5 of the proposals, including those submitted by TMI and Selrico, in the competitive range. After the agency amended the solicitation, requested best and final offers (BAFO), and reevaluated, the protester's and Selrico's BAFOs were ranked as follows: TMI's proposal had the lowest price and a past performance rating of marginal, Selrico's proposal had the second lowest price and a past performance rating of exceptional. [1] As a result, the contracting officer concluded that Selrico's proposal offered the best value to the government, and on March 25, 1997, selected that company for award. Selrico's performance was to begin on April 1. On March 28, TMI filed its initial protest of the award to Selrico in our Office, alleging that the evaluation of past performance was unreasonable. After the agency decided to reopen discussions with the offerors whose proposals were in the competitive range and request a second round of BAFOs, TMI withdrew its initial protest on April 11. Because TMI's initial protest resulted in a stay of Selrico's performance, and because the Navy had an ongoing need for these mess services, the agency held an expedited competition limited to the competitive range offerors to procure the services for the month of April only. TMI won this competition, and since it was the incumbent, TMI returned to the facility on April 2, after only 1 full day of performance by Selrico. As discussed in greater detail below, certain issues regarding TMI's past performance score raised in the current protest arise from events that took place on April 2 when TMI began performance of the interim contract. After the agency held discussions, requested and received a second round of BAFOs, and completed its evaluation, it raised TMI's past performance rating from marginal to acceptable; TMI's proposal continued to have the lowest price of any offer in the competitive range. As before, the second lowest-priced proposal was Selrico's, which retained its exceptional rating under the past performance factor. Thus, the contracting officer based her best value decision on the following information: OFFEROR PRICE PAST PERFORMANCE RATING TMI $ 1,723,862.27 Acceptable Selrico $ 1,911,776.23 Exceptional By memorandum dated April 30, the contracting officer determined that Selrico's highly rated past performance outweighed the price benefit offered by TMI, and concluded again that Selrico's proposal offered the best value to the government. On the same day, Selrico's stop-work order was canceled, and TMI was advised by letter that Selrico remained the awardee. After TMI received a debriefing on May 7, it filed its current bid protest on May 13.