Apache Enterprises, Inc., B-278855.2, July 30, 1998

B-278855.2 Jul 30, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Technically acceptable offeror if that offeror was "judged to have a not applicable. Price and past performance were of equal weight and ranked second. Were found technically acceptable. Best and final offers (BAFO) were received. LSI should have received a "not applicable. " performance risk rating. /2/ We will review an agency's evaluation of proposals to ensure that it is fair. The evaluation here was reasonable. Offerors were merely required to submit certain information. Indicating whether it was development and/or production. To explain what aspects of the contract were deemed relevant. Thus are relevant to the requirement here. That the misrepresentation was relied upon by the agency in the evaluation. View Decision Matter of: Apache Enterprises, Inc. File: B-278855.2 Date: July 30, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Apache Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Luminescent Systems, Inc. (LSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-97-R-0010, a small business set-aside issued by the Department of the Air Force for interior and exterior aircraft lighting kits compatible with the Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS). Apache principally asserts that the agency misevaluated LSI's past performance references in awarding its proposal a low risk rating. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued October 28, 1997, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract (with minor cost-reimbursable items) and stated that the agency would employ performance-price trade-off techniques to make a best value award decision. However, the RFP proceeded to define "best value" as the proposal received from the low, technically acceptable, responsible offeror which has been awarded a low performance risk rating. The RFP provided that award could be made to other than the low, technically acceptable offeror if that offeror was "judged to have a not applicable, moderate, or high performance risk rating." RFP Sec. M.B.3.b. The RFP ranked the technical/management area as the most important; price and past performance were of equal weight and ranked second. Concerning past performance, the RFP stated that a performance risk assessment would be conducted on each proposal and required offerors to submit information on past "relevant" contracts demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. /1/ RFP Sec. L.B.2.b, d. On January 20, 1998, the agency received six proposals. Five, including LSI's and Apache's, were found technically acceptable. After discussions, best and final offers (BAFO) were received; LSI offered a total evaluated price of $50.7 million for all basic and option requirements, and Apache offered a price of [deleted]. The agency's performance risk assessment group (PRAG) sent out questionnaires to the sources provided by the offerors. LSI provided 16 sources--8 references for efforts performed by LSI and 8 for its subcontractors. The PRAG evaluated only the past performance of offerors and not their subcontractors. Six of LSI's sources returned the questionnaires; four of those sources met the PRAG's definition of qualified sources. After reviewing the responses, the PRAG awarded LSI a low risk rating. Further, a preaward survey by the Defense Contract Management Command rated LSI satisfactory in the areas of production capability, quality assurance capability, financial capability, and accounting system capability, and also found that LSI had more than 25 years of experience in electroluminescent lamp and aircraft light manufacture; the survey thus recommended award. The Air Force made award to LSI and this protest followed. Apache principally asserts that LSI's references evaluated by the agency for past performance did not include a contract for the design, fabrication and testing of integrated NVIS lighting systems because LSI has neither such experience nor experience in providing any of the part families in the F-16 lighting system. In the absence of a reference source for NVIS lighting systems, Apache maintains, LSI should have received a "not applicable," rather than a "low," performance risk rating. /2/ We will review an agency's evaluation of proposals to ensure that it is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation. Wind Gap Knitwear, Inc., B-261045, June 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 124 at 3. The evaluation here was reasonable. This RFP called for cockpit and exterior aircraft lighting systems compatible with NVIS's--it did not cover the design, fabrication and testing of NVIS lighting systems--and nothing in the RFP indicated that the contract references furnished by offerors had to include NVIS lighting system contracts in order to be deemed "relevant" or for a proposal to receive a low performance risk rating.