U.S. Technology Corporation, B-278584, February 17, 1998

B-278584 Feb 17, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation. 2. Award in best value procurement to firm whose lower-price proposal was rated lower than protester's proposal for past performance is unobjectionable. Despite solicitation provision that past performance was to be considered more important than price. Agency reasonably concluded that paying the approximate [deleted]-percent price premium for the protester's higher-rated past performance was not warranted in light of the satisfactory past performance of the awardee and the awardee's substantially lower-proposed price. View Decision Matter of: U.S. Technology Corporation File: B-278584 Date: February 17, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION U.S. Technology Corporation (UST) protests the award of a contract to Composite Leasing Corporation (CLC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-97-R-1472, issued by the Department of the Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center--Norfolk, Detachment Philadelphia, on behalf of the Naval Aviation Depot, Cherry Point, North Carolina, for the lease and recycling of plastic media blasting mesh, and the recycling of abrasive glass bead dust products, used in the removal of paint from Navy aircraft. UST, the incumbent contractor, protests the propriety of the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance, and the source selection authority's determination that the protester's higher past performance rating was not worth the associated price premium. /1/ We deny the protest. The RFP provided that plastic media and glass bead dust products (containing residue plastic media or glass bead dust, and paint chips containing heavy metals including chromium, lead, and cadmium) are considered hazardous material which must be recycled in accordance with stated regulatory requirements, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Sec. 261.2(e) (1997). RFP Amendment No. 6 at 3, Sec. C.1. The RFP stated that, in addition to the lease of plastic media meeting stated military specifications (id. at 4, Sec. C.5.1), the government expected the contractor to eliminate hazardous waste from the paint removal site by recycling generated dust products. Id., Sec. C.2. The recycling of the dust products was to involve using those products as ingredients in an industrial process to make a new product (rendering inert the hazardous material)--which would exempt the dust products from characterization as hazardous waste. Id. at 7, Sec. C.6.3.1. In order to be eligible for award, each offeror was required to submit with its proposal written approval from the cognizant environmental authority for the state of North Carolina (where the blasting media are to be used) and the state in which the recycling will be performed, demonstrating that the states had approved the offeror's recycling process as meeting requisite regulatory qualifications. Id. at 7 (definitive responsibility criteria). The award of a firm, fixed-price, requirements-type contract, for a base year plus 2 option years, was contemplated. RFP at 33; RFP Amendment No. 6 at 2-3, Sec. B. The RFP, as amended, provided that award would be made to the offeror determined to have submitted the most advantageous proposal, price and past performance considered, with past performance being "more important" than price. RFP Amendment No. 5 at 10, Sec. M. Each offeror was to "describe its past performance on similar contracts it has held within the last five (5) years which are of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to that which is detailed in the RFP . . . ." Id. at 9, Sec. L. Offerors were also advised of the following: that the agency would consider the quality of the past performance to assess the relative capability of the offeror to meet the requirements of the RFP; that the agency could obtain information about the offeror's prior contracts from any source; and that greater consideration was to be given to contracts which "the Government feels are most relevant to the RFP." Id. at 10-11, Sec. M. The contracting officer's representative surveyed six of CLC's past performance references regarding some of the firm's other plastic media lease and recycling contracts. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 24. Each reference contacted recommended CLC for award. Although three of those references noted a minor performance concern, they also reported that the problem was promptly cured by CLC, and that the firm's performance was in accordance with contract requirements. See Contract Review Board Presentation (Post-negotiation), Oct. 16, 1997 at 13. CLC's overall contract performance was rated as "satisfactory" or "acceptable" on five of the contracts, and "outstanding" on the sixth.