Goshen Excavators, B-279093.2, April 20, 1998

B-279093.2 Apr 20, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the agency reasonably viewed as unpersuasive the protester's objections to a negative past performance reference and reasonably discounted a positive reference for a contract that was not similar to the instant contract. 600 was in line for selection. The contracting officer accepted the recommendation that Goshen was nonresponsible. That is. Was located far from the Illinois job site and had proposed to subcontract a substantial amount of the contract work. Because Goshen is a small business concern. After Goshen was denied a COC. Goshen disputed the negative performance evaluation by the Rock Island District and advised that it was seeking to overturn that evaluation. The contracting officer confirmed that the Rock Island District had not afforded Goshen an opportunity to comment on the negative performance evaluation and was withdrawing the evaluation until it investigated Goshen's objections. View Decision B-279093.2 Goshen Excavators, April 20, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Goshen Excavators protests its rejection as nonresponsible by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DACW23-97-Q-0136, for seawall protection construction work at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Fort Sheridan, Illinois. We deny the protest. The agency received three quotes on September 24, 1997. Since Goshen's lowest-priced quote of $87,600 was in line for selection, the contract specialist conducted a preaward survey to assess Goshen's responsibility. On October 30, the contract specialist recommended that Goshen be found nonresponsible based upon negative information obtained from four contract references, including the Corps's Rock Island Illinois District, which issued an unsatisfactory performance evaluation of Goshen's performance under a 1994 contract. /1/ The information from these references indicated that Goshen did not pay subcontractors on time, did not adequately supervise and manage the contract work, did not complete the work as scheduled, did not comply with government reporting requirements, and did not respond to telephone calls. The contracting officer accepted the recommendation that Goshen was nonresponsible. The contracting officer found particularly significant the Rock Island District's criticism of Goshen's control of, and timely payment to, subcontractors. Because this contract and the Rock Island contract shared certain features--that is, Goshen, a Connecticut business, was located far from the Illinois job site and had proposed to subcontract a substantial amount of the contract work--the contracting officer viewed Goshen's past problems with subcontractors as posing a serious performance risk, such that he could not determine Goshen to be responsible. Because Goshen is a small business concern, the contracting officer referred the negative determination to the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the certificate of competency (COC) procedures. The contracting officer gave the SBA his responsibility determination, the preaward survey report, the negative performance evaluation from the Rock Island District, and Goshen's list of contract references. /2/ On November 25, SBA declined to issue a COC. After Goshen was denied a COC, the firm persuaded the contracting officer to reconsider his nonresponsibility determination in light of additional past performance information supplied by Goshen. First, Goshen disputed the negative performance evaluation by the Rock Island District and advised that it was seeking to overturn that evaluation, which had been rendered without the protester having an opportunity to comment. In reevaluating Goshen's responsibility, the contracting officer confirmed that the Rock Island District had not afforded Goshen an opportunity to comment on the negative performance evaluation and was withdrawing the evaluation until it investigated Goshen's objections. Nevertheless, because the Rock Island District had not issued a new evaluation or indicated any intent to issue a satisfactory evaluation, the contracting officer concluded that there was no basis to overturn his negative responsibility determination. Second, Goshen argued that the Corps, during its preaward survey, should have contacted a car wash owner who hired Goshen to assist in the construction of his facility. In reevaluating Goshen's responsibility, the Corps contacted the car wash owner, who confirmed that Goshen's work was satisfactory, but the reference did not resolve the Corps's doubts about Goshen's ability to perform the instant contract, which the Corps viewed as distinguishable from the car wash contract.