Rockhill Industries, Inc., B-278797, March 16, 1998

B-278797 Mar 16, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where record shows that awardee's performance under prior contracts was generally timely. Which concluded that there was a significantly smaller risk in awarding contract to the offeror with the better performance record. Was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. As follows: excellent/very low risk ("Essentially no doubt . . . that the offeror will successfully perform . . . ."). Was delinquent. There were indications that Rockhill had performed well where the smaller orders did not exceed material already on hand. The contracting officer/ source selection official determined that there was a significantly heightened probability that MHI would deliver on time. It should have received the award. View Decision Matter of: Rockhill Industries, Inc. File: B-278797 Date: March 16, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Rockhill Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Miller-Holzwarth Inc., (MHI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE07-97-R-T011, issued by the Department of the Army for M1 Abrams tank periscopes. Rockhill contends that the Army demonstrated bias in its selection of MHI for award and challenges the agency's evaluation of past performance. We deny the protest. On January 27, 1997, the agency issued the solicitation for a fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract for a 3-year period, with two 1-year option periods, for production and delivery of up to 3,015 M1 Abrams tank periscopes, including a first article, with two 1-year options for up to 804 additional periscopes in each of the option years. RFP Sec. A(b)(1), B, and L-5. The solicitation provided for consideration of price and past performance as bases of award, with price slightly more important than past performance. RFP sec. M.1. The solicitation, Sec. L-16, directed offerors to submit information on any contracts in any way relevant to the instant effort, received or still in performance during the previous 3 years, including commercial contracts, to include, as follows: contract number; procuring contracting officer's name and telephone number, national stock number, and contract value. It warned that the agency would use independent data, in addition to that submitted by the offerors, to evaluate past performance. The RFP, sec. M.3, provided that the agency would assess the relative performance risk, in terms of quality and schedule, of each proposal; it distinguished between proposal risk, associated with an offeror's proposed approach and which the agency did not intend to evaluate, and performance risk, which the agency would evaluate based on past performance. The RFP also provided for six potential ratings, as follows: excellent/very low risk ("Essentially no doubt . . . that the offeror will successfully perform . . . ."), good/low risk ("[l]ittle doubt"), adequate/moderate risk ("[s]ome doubt"), marginal/high risk ("[s]ubstantial doubt"), and poor/very high risk ("[e]xtremely doubtful"), as well as neutral/unknown risk ("No meaningfully relevant record of past performance."). The assessment would be based on past performance as it related to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort, focusing on the offerors' past performance as it related to solicitation requirements, specifically quality and schedule. The agency urged offerors to include all relevant past efforts, including corrective action, to avoid a "neutral/unknown risk" rating, and again warned that the agency might consider data obtained from other sources in its evaluation. The agency received four proposals on April 18; Rockhill submitted the lowest price, $1,492,469.72 with first article testing and $1,472,469.72 without first article testing, versus MHI's second low price of $1,599,252 with first article testing and $1,579,257 without first article testing. The evaluators considered MHI's performance under three similar contracts as "good/low risk" overall. The evaluators rated Rockhill's performance "poor" overall, or very high risk. Rockhill had performed well on three purchase orders for similar items, with much smaller quantities (276 altogether, mostly periscopes for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle). Rockhill had received one contract for a similar quantity--approximately 1,800 periscopes--and was delinquent, despite receiving three delivery extensions. There were indications that Rockhill had performed well where the smaller orders did not exceed material already on hand, but that the firm's financial difficulties, which prompted the critical subcontractor for laser filters to insist on cash payment prior to delivery, seriously hampered the protester's ability to perform on larger contracts, where it had to order parts.