Hard Bodies, Inc., B-279543, June 23, 1998

B-279543 Jun 23, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Evaluation of offeror's past performance was reasonable where it was performed in accordance with stated evaluation criteria and reflected valid assessment of offeror's experience. This procurement is for the management and operation of a fitness/wellness center for approximately 1. The successful offeror will be responsible for staffing the center. Past performance was rated on the basis of anticipated risk in delivery of a quality product. A "neutral" rating was assigned to offerors which had no relevant past performance available for evaluation. Amended section M.2 provided for award to the offeror whose technically acceptable proposal was determined most advantageous to the government based on price and past performance. View Decision Matter of: Hard Bodies, Inc. File: B-279543 Date: June 23, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Hard Bodies, Inc. (HBI) protests the award of a contract to FMF Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-97-R-2454, issued by the Department of the Navy as a total small business set-aside for operation of a fitness/wellness center at the Office of Naval Intelligence in Washington, D.C. HBI challenges the RFP evaluation criteria and their application by the agency. We deny the protest. This procurement is for the management and operation of a fitness/wellness center for approximately 1,250 military and civilian Naval personnel. The successful offeror will be responsible for staffing the center; facilitating participation through a predetermined application process; planning, organizing, and coordinating wellness/intervention programs and activities; and evaluating program activities and submitting regular reports. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with 4 option years. The original RFP provided for award to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. Prior to the closing date, the agency amended the RFP (amendment No. 0001) to change the basis of award and the evaluation criteria. As amended, section M.5 of the RFP provided for the evaluation of past performance to "evaluate the relative capability of the offeror" to meet the RFP requirements. While the RFP called for evaluation and consideration of the past performance of significant or critical subcontractors, the RFP specifically provided that past performance of "key personnel," if any, shall not be considered. Past performance was rated on the basis of anticipated risk in delivery of a quality product, on time, without degradation of performance. An "outstanding" rating represented "no risk"; a "better" rating represented "very little risk"; a "satisfactory" rating represented "some potential risk"; and a "marginal" rating represented "significant potential risk." A "neutral" rating was assigned to offerors which had no relevant past performance available for evaluation. Amended section M.2 provided for award to the offeror whose technically acceptable proposal was determined most advantageous to the government based on price and past performance. This section also provided that "only proposals that are determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for award" and "[t]he evaluation will consider past performance as more important as technical approach." (Emphasis added.) After receipt of proposals, the agency again amended the RFP (amendment No. 0003) to change the foregoing section M.2 sentence to read: "The evaluation will consider past performance as more important than technical approach." (Emphasis added.) Four offerors including HBI and FMF submitted initial proposals by the October 14 closing date. The agency completed initial evaluations by February 6, 1998. At that time, both FMF's and HBI's proposals were rated as "unacceptable" but capable of being made acceptable through modification. While FMF's past performance was rated as outstanding, HBI's proposal received no rating in this regard because HBI had submitted insufficient information. Both proposals were included in the competitive range, and the agency conducted discussions on February 11. Both offerors submitted revised proposals on February 20 and best and final offers (BAFO) on February 27. In the final evaluation, both FMF's and HBI's proposals were rated technically acceptable. However, FMF's proposal was rated "outstanding" for past performance, while HBI's proposal was rated "acceptable." /1/ FMF's proposal was priced at $306,413.28 while HBI's was priced at $266,820.