The ENDMARK Corporation, B-278139, December 31, 1997

B-278139 Dec 31, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Are deemed necessary by the agency to assess offerors' capabilities. The requirements in fact are aimed at enabling the agency to make such an assessment. Experience requirements do not exceed agency's needs where they are directly related to the work to be performed under the solicitation. Offerors were required to provide a list of their subcontractors' support service contracts being performed or completed within the last 3 years. ENDMARK maintains that the requirement is unduly restrictive because it would be very difficult for small business offerors to assemble the voluminous contract information for proposed large business subcontractors. While this is a step in the right direction. View Decision Matter of: The ENDMARK Corporation File: B-278139 Date: December 31, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The ENDMARK Corporation protests the terms of Department of the Navy request for proposals (RFP) No. N00019-97-R-0046, issued as a small business set-aside for analysis and technical studies, engineering and technical services, and management and professional services. The protester contends that certain requirements in the RFP exceed the agency's needs and unduly restrict competition. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract on a best value basis for a 1-year base period, with four 1-year options. The RFP set forth the following three evaluation factors: (1) technical, (2) price and cost realism, and (3) past performance. The RFP listed three technical subfactors--personnel experience, sample tasks, and management plan--and two past performance subfactors--past contracts and key personnel. For evaluation under the past contracts subfactor under the past performance factor, offerors were required to provide a list of their subcontractors' support service contracts being performed or completed within the last 3 years. ENDMARK maintains that the requirement is unduly restrictive because it would be very difficult for small business offerors to assemble the voluminous contract information for proposed large business subcontractors. In response to this argument, the agency issued amendment No. 0001, establishing 20 contracts as an acceptable minimum under this requirement for large business subcontractors. The protester asserts that, while this is a step in the right direction, the requirement remains unduly restrictive since it precludes otherwise qualified large business subcontractors which have performed only a few contracts of significant value over this period. ENDMARK concludes that requiring subcontractors to provide a list of fewer than 10 contracts would be adequate to meet the agency's needs. The determination of an agency's needs and the best method of accommodating them is primarily within the agency's discretion. See U.S. Defense Sys., Inc., B-251544 et al., Mar. 30, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 279 at 5. In this same vein, although the source and type of past performance information to be included in an evaluation should be tailored to the circumstances of each acquisition, it ultimately is within the broad discretion of agency acquisition officials to determine what information is necessary. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 15.608(a)(2)(ii) (June 1997). The requirements under the past contracts subfactor are unobjectionable. The Navy explains that the relatively large number of past contracts must be listed because it will use these contracts to obtain references, and history has shown that only a small percentage of references actually complete and return the performance questionnaires. Only in this manner can the agency be assured that it will have enough information for evaluation purposes. While these requirements may impose a significant burden on offerors, the Navy's concerns clearly are valid, and the agency already has relaxed the requirement to some extent by permitting as few as 20 large business subcontracts to be listed. Further, contrary to ENDMARK's contention, the RFP does not preclude offerors from proposing qualified large business subcontractors which have performed fewer than 20 contracts within the past 3 years, since amendment No. 0002 allows offerors to explain why they are unable to provide past performance information and states that offerors "will not be penalized if past performance information cannot be provided for legitimate reasons." We conclude that the requirements, as amended, have been reasonably formulated to ensure that the agency will have enough information for evaluation purposes, while both relieving somewhat the informational burden on offerors and making provision to allow offerors to propose large business subcontractors which have performed fewer than 20 past contracts. ENDMARK also objects to inclusion of the key personnel subfactor under the past performance factor.