Braswell Services Group, Inc., B-278921.2, June 17, 1998

B-278921.2 Jun 17, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably evaluated protester's past performance as unsatisfactory where record shows that the protester's most relevant contract performance was reasonably perceived as inadequate by the agency. Which was the rating closest to a neutral assessment. Where the agency did not have available on file past performance rating information for the awardee which it viewed as sufficient to permit a full evaluation. Agency selection of slightly higher-priced proposal with a satisfactory past performance rating instead of the lower-priced proposal with an unsatisfactory rating was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. Braswell argues that the Navy's past performance evaluation was unreasonable and that the agency failed to award the contract on the basis of the best value to the government. View Decision Matter of: Braswell Services Group, Inc. File: B-278921.2 Date: June 17, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Braswell Services Group, Inc. protests the award of a fixed-price contract to Earl Industries under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62670-98-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Navy for the restricted availability (RAV) /1/ of the USS DEWERT. Braswell argues that the Navy's past performance evaluation was unreasonable and that the agency failed to award the contract on the basis of the best value to the government, as required by the RFP. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on December 8, 1997 by the supervisor of shipbuilding conversion and repair (SUPSHIP), U.S. Navy, Jacksonville, Florida and consisted of approximately 40 work items. The period of performance was March 23 through May 6, 1998. The RFP was restricted to offerors possessing Master Ship Repair Agreements (MSRA). /2/ Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government under two criteria: (1) past performance and (2) price. Past performance was to be evaluated based on the following factors: quality of product or service, timeliness of performance, and contracting/business relations, with greater consideration being given to contracts requiring the same or similar type and complexity of work as that required by the RFP. Section M-6(c)(1) of the RFP provided that for award determination, "[p]ast performance is approximately equal to [p]rice, with [p]ast [p]erformance being more important than [p]rice." The solicitation at section L-2-8 permitted offerors to submit any information considered relevant to the Navy's evaluation of their past performance and to provide corrective action taken to prevent recurrence of past performance problems. This section indicated that the Navy has performance information readily available and sought primarily "additional information," requiring offerors to submit a list of all ship repair work performed for the government in the last 3 years that exceeded $500,000, "to assist the [Navy] in performing the past performance evaluation." The Navy received proposals from six offerors by the January 14 closing date. One offeror withdrew prior to evaluation of proposals. The past performance evaluation team (PPET) reviewed the past performance file that it had for each of the five remaining offerors. SUPSHIP Jacksonville had available past performance evaluations for the last Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) scheduled availability performed by three offerors, including Braswell. Braswell's evaluation was primarily based on its performance in 1997 of repairs to the USS MOOSBRUGGER, which was included in its past performance file. Under the USS MOOSBRUGGER evaluation, Braswell received an overall rating of unsatisfactory with a marginal rating for quality of product or service and timeliness of performance and an unsatisfactory rating for contracting business relations. Braswell's past performance file also contained two lists of contracts it submitted with its proposal and letters Braswell had written to rebut various aspects of the USS MOOSBRUGGER evaluation. Earl had not previously completed a CNO availability under SUPSHIP Jacksonville and consequently it had no relevant past performance information on file. After reviewing the past performance of the three offerors on file, the PPET summarized these offerors' respective strengths, weaknesses, and risks, and arrived at an overall adjectival past performance rating. The PPET concluded that none of the documents in Braswell's past performance file affected Braswell's overall unsatisfactory past performance rating under the USS MOOSBRUGGER evaluation.