SWR, Inc., B-276878, July 29, 1997

B-276878 Jul 29, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Identified form on which firms were to provide past performance information. Selection of higher-priced quote submitted by firm with higher past performance rating was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation scheme. Protest that form used for past performance evaluation was insufficient to distinguish between firms is untimely. This requirement was initially issued on December 31. Which were ranked as equal factors. The solicitation described the evaluation of past performance as follows: Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective but impartial assessment based upon a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based upon absolute standards. View Decision Matter of: SWR, Inc. File: B-276878 Date: July 29, 1997 Where solicitation identified price and past performance as equally weighted evaluation criteria, identified form on which firms were to provide past performance information, and advised firms of the use to which the form would be put and the manner in which past performance would be evaluated, selection of higher-priced quote submitted by firm with higher past performance rating was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation scheme; protest that form used for past performance evaluation was insufficient to distinguish between firms is untimely, since the solicitation clearly described the use to which the form would be put. Attorneys DECISION SWR, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to Technical Specialties, Inc. (TSI) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP4700-97-Q-0001, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for maintenance of computers. SWR asserts that the agency lacked a reasonable basis for its evaluation of quotes and selection of TSI. We deny the protest. This requirement was initially issued on December 31, 1996, as a request for proposals to supply parts and labor necessary for remedial and preventative maintenance of government-owned microcomputers and peripheral equipment located at the DLA headquarters complex at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia and other DLA-supported activities in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. On January 23, 1997, DLA converted the solicitation to a small purchase RFQ, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13. As amended, the RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price, time-and-materials purchase order for a performance period not to exceed either a maximum funding ceiling of $50,000 or 1 year, whichever occurred earlier. The RFQ stated that award would be made to the firm submitting the technically acceptable quotation offering the best value to the government, based on a "comparative assessment" of past performance and price, which were ranked as equal factors. The solicitation described the evaluation of past performance as follows: Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective but impartial assessment based upon a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based upon absolute standards. The Government is seeking to determine whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely, quality service in the same or similar acquisitions. This is a matter of judgment. The RFQ advised potential quoters that the agency would evaluate past performance in accordance with a past performance questionnaire attached to the solicitation. The RFQ instructed quoters to fill in the first page of three copies of the questionnaires, providing information on their three most recent similar contracts, and that the agency would then forward the questionnaires to the activities listed for an assessment of past performance. This assessment would include five areas: timeliness of performance, quality of supplies delivered or services performed, problem identification and resolution, cost containment/pricing issues, and customer service. While the agency reserved the right to consider information obtained from other sources, it advised quoters that primary emphasis would be upon responses to the past performance questionnaire. By the March 18 closing date, 12 quotations were received. The protester submitted the low price; the awardee was second low. Eight firms, including the awardee, received a past performance rating of "outstanding." The protester received an overall past performance rating of "satisfactory." The contracting officer noted that TSI had received higher ratings from its customers in all five areas of past performance, historically providing timelier, higher quality, and overall better customer service. The contracting officer noted that timelier service would result in less down time (and, therefore, more productive time) for the customer. Higher quality service would, he noted, result in fewer repeatable breakdowns.