Court Copies & Images, Inc., B-277268; B-277268.2, September

Court Copies & Images, Inc., B-277268; B-277268.2, September BNUMBER: B-277268; B-277268.2 DATE: September 24, 1997 TITLE: Court Copies & Images, Inc., B-277268; B-277268.2, September 24, 1997 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Court Copies & Images, Inc. File: B-277268; B-277268.2 Date:September 24, 1997 John B. McDaniel, Esq., and O. Kevin Vincent, Esq., Baker & Botts, LLP, for the protester. Roberta M. Echard, Esq., Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, for the agency. Scott Riback, Esq., and John Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly found protester's quotations technically unacceptable based on its performance of predecessor contract for requirements being solicited is denied where record supports agency's evaluation finding of significant problems with protester's performance. DECISION Court Copies & Images, Inc. (CCI) protests the actions of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) in eliminating its quotations from further consideration under requests for quotations (RFQ) for copying services at four locations of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.[1] CCI maintains that the agency unreasonably found its quotations technically unacceptable based on its prior performance of copier services at several Bankruptcy Court locations. We deny the protest. The solicitations contemplated the award of license agreements to the firms selected based on price and experience/prior performance. This latter factor was comprised of four considerations: experience in providing copying and related services equivalent to the estimated number of copies being solicited; courtesy and professionalism of the vendor in responding to the public; the quality of the copies and timeliness in providing them; and overall performance in providing similar services. Quotations were to include three references for which the firm had performed similar services, and a list of courts for which they had performed such services. The RFQs explained that the agency would evaluate materials submitted with the quotations, as well as information obtained by the agency through reference checks. On the basis of its review, the agency assigned quotations a rating of either acceptable or unacceptable for the experience/prior performance factor. CCI quoted the lowest price for all four locations, but the AOUSC rejected CCI's quotations as technically unacceptable based primarily on the firm's prior performance of the requirements at three of the four locations being solicited. According to the agency, CCI's performance under the predecessor license agreements had been unacceptable because of CCI's failure to offer all services required in a manner that reflected favorably upon the reputation of the courts, and because of the firm's continued violation of the terms of the license agreements in numerous instances, for example, by sending copies by facsimile and imposing minimum order amounts for transactions where the purchaser wanted to pay using a credit card or check. Additionally, the agency found two of CCI's three non-court references of only marginal relevance because the two concerns--both law firms--indicated that their primary involvement had been with CCI's affiliated concern, BDR, which the law firms used for file retrieval rather than copying services. CCI takes issue with the agency's evaluation of its prior performance. While CCI concedes that it had several difficulties at the outset of contract performance, it maintains that it rapidly resolved all matters brought to its attention by the courts, and that its more recent performance has been exemplary. CCI therefore contends that the agency's determination that its prior performance was technically unacceptable was unreasonable because it failed to consider that CCI's performance improved shortly after the startup of the contract. When evaluating past performance, agencies properly may take into consideration a firm's overall performance, and not just its most recent activities, and properly may downgrade a firm even where, compared to its earlier performance, its more recent performance is improved. See GEC Marconi Elec. Sys. Corp., B-276186; B-276186.2, May 21, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 23 at 12-13. Our Office will review a past performance evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Id.[2] The evaluation here was reasonable; the record supports the agency's finding of inadequate performance by CCI throughout its prior contracts, including its more recent performance.