Rohmann Services, Inc., B-280154.2, November 16, 1998

B-280154.2 Nov 16, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of the evaluation of protester's past performance is denied where the contracting agency reasonably assigned a moderate risk rating to the protester's past performance as a result of customer complaints about the protester's performance and staff and manager turnover on the incumbent contract. The agency was to consider past performance significantly more important than price and evaluate offerors' past performance for the same or similar work assigning performance risk ratings of high. WP's proposal was the third lowest priced. Rohmann was assigned a moderate past performance risk rating and WP was assigned a low rating. Rohmann's moderate rating primarily was due to concerns about Rohmann's performance on the incumbent contract. View Decision Matter of: Rohmann Services, Inc. File: B-280154.2 Date: November 16, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Rohmann Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to WP Photographic Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41650-98-R-0002, issued by the Department of Air Force for visual information services at Kelly Air Force Base. Rohmann argues that the agency improperly evaluated its past performance and failed to communicate to the firm the agency's concerns about its performance of the incumbent contract. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicited services include advice and assistance on visual information materials, methods, equipment and facilities, graphics services, studio and location photography, film processing, visual information library services, and equipment maintenance. RFP Sec. C-5. The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate offers on the basis of past performance and price and contemplated award to the offeror whose proposal met the terms of the solicitation and contained the best overall value to the government. Id. at 21. According to the RFP, the agency was to consider past performance significantly more important than price and evaluate offerors' past performance for the same or similar work assigning performance risk ratings of high, moderate, low, or not applicable. /1/ Id. The RFP advised that, although the agency reserved the right to conduct discussions if necessary, the agency planned to award on the basis of initial proposals, without discussions. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.212-1 (April 1998) (incorporated by reference). RFP at 1. The agency received six proposals. Rohmann, the incumbent contractor, submitted the lowest-priced proposal, at $1,291,649.40, and WP's proposal was the third lowest priced, at $1,351,302.27. Agency Report, Enclosure 5 at 1, 3. Based on information submitted by the offerors and information provided by references contacted by the agency, Rohmann was assigned a moderate past performance risk rating and WP was assigned a low rating. Rohmann's moderate rating primarily was due to concerns about Rohmann's performance on the incumbent contract. Supplemental Agency Report at 2; Agency Report, Enclosure 11 at 21-55. Award was made to WP based on the conclusion that WP's offer was the most advantageous to the government. Agency Report, Enclosure 5 at 5. PROTEST ALLEGATIONS Rohmann primarily argues that the agency improperly evaluated its performance on the incumbent contract. According to Rohmann, the marginal rating which it received for its performance as the incumbent is not supported by the record and is a result of the bias of the agency's quality assurance evaluator (QAE) on that contract. Comments at Para. 9, 27 and 39-40. Rohmann argues that the QAE solicited complaints against Rohmann and, as a member or the evaluation panel, manipulated the past performance evaluation and influenced other evaluators to harm Rohmann. Id. at Para. 40. Rohmann also argues that the agency's record of its performance is poorly organized, with duplicate copies of some documents, partial documentation of some events, and many documents that have no bearing on the determination that Rohmann performed poorly at Kelly and, in some cases, show acceptable performance. Id. at Para. 36. Rohmann also argues that the agency failed to communicate to the firm the agency's concerns about its performance of the incumbent contract. Comments at Para. 23, 26, and 30; Supplemental Comments at Para. 25-28. According to Rohmann, during the evaluation, it was entitled to an explanation of the agency's concerns about the firm's performance on the incumbent contract and an opportunity to respond to those concerns. Comments at Para. 23, 26, and 30. ANALYSIS Evaluation of an offeror's past performance is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency, and we will not substitute our judgment for a reasonably based past performance rating. PMT Servs., Inc., B-270538.2, Apr. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 98 at 6.