BFI Waste Systems of Nebraska, Inc., B-278223, January 8,

B-278223 Jan 08, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's evaluation of offeror's past performance is unobjectionable where alleged deficiencies in past performance were reasonably assessed by the agency as having no negative impact on offeror's otherwise excellent past performance record. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of quality (40 points). Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated as most advantageous to the government. Offerors were required to submit specific information with regard to the first two evaluation factors. Offerors were to submit statements as to: whether the offeror was in compliance with Department of Transportation (DOT). Quality management programs or training programs in effect and whether in-service and other continual training is provided to employees. View Decision Matter of: BFI Waste Systems of Nebraska, Inc. File: B-278223 Date: January 8, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION BFI Waste Systems of Nebraska, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Environmental Health Systems, Inc. (EHS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 636-1-98, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs. BFI challenges the agency's evaluation of EHS' past performance. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for pickup, transportation, and disposal of infectious medical waste from the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMC) in Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of quality (40 points), past performance (30 points), and price (30 points). Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated as most advantageous to the government. For evaluation purposes, offerors were required to submit specific information with regard to the first two evaluation factors. As to quality, offerors were to submit statements as to: whether the offeror was in compliance with Department of Transportation (DOT), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) regulations, along with the date or copy of the offeror's license, permit, or certificates; quality management programs or training programs in effect and whether in-service and other continual training is provided to employees; and programs or training available for reduction of contaminated biomedical waste. With regard to past performance, offerors were required to: provide references with names and telephone numbers of prior or current customers; list hospitals for which the same service had been provided; and list "transgressions" from compliance with DOT, EPA, or OSHA regulations in the past 3 years. Two offerors, BFI and EHS, submitted proposals by the September 15, 1997, closing date. Both proposals were technically evaluated by the contracting officer and the Omaha VAMC's industrial hygienist. Both proposals received the maximum number of points for quality and past performance. With regard to the evaluation of EHS' past performance and quality, there was no evidence of past violations of DOT, EPA, or OSHA regulations. Further, the contracting officer observed that in her direct experience dealing with EHS for the past 5 to 6 years, the contractor had always provided service on a prompt, efficient, and professional basis. She also noted that no one at the Omaha or Lincoln VAMCs had expressed any dissatisfaction with EHS' performance. BFI's proposed price of $198,048 received a score of 20 points, while EHS' price of $155,596 was evaluated at 30 points. Since the agency found the two proposals were technically equal, it determined that price was the deciding factor. In accordance with the RFP, the agency made the award to EHS on the basis of initial proposals, without conducting discussions. Upon receiving notice of the award, BFI filed this protest with our Office. BFI asserts that the agency's evaluation of EHS' proposal under the past performance and quality factors was flawed because it did not take into account alleged deficiencies in EHS' performance under the incumbent contract. In this regard, it is not the function of our Office to evaluate proposals de novo. Rather, we will examine an agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations, since the relative merit of competing proposals is primarily a matter of administrative discretion. Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 284, 285 (1990), 90-1 CPD Para. 203 at 3; Advanced Techology and Research Corp., B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD Para. 230 at 3. An agency may properly consider its own experience with an offeror's performance where the solicitation contains past performance as an evaluation factor. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc., B-275066, Jan. 17, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 30 at 3. The protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.