NAPA Supply of Grand Forks, Inc., B-280996.2, May 13, 1999

B-280996.2 May 13, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights NAPA Supply of Grand Forks, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Jay Automotive Specialities, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F32604-98-R0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the furnishing of commercial vehicle and equipment-related parts, automotive chemicals, corrosion control materials, upholstery material, and accessories for the vehicle fleet and miscellaneous equipment at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. NAPA challenges the evaluation of Jay's past performance and the agency's past performance/price tradeoff resulting in the award to an offeror whose proposal was lower rated and lower priced. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Matter of: NAPA Supply of Grand Forks, Inc. File: B-280996.2 Date: May 13, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION NAPA Supply of Grand Forks, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Jay Automotive Specialties, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F32604-98-R0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the furnishing of commercial vehicle and equipment-related parts, automotive chemicals, corrosion control materials, upholstery material, and accessories for the vehicle fleet and miscellaneous equipment at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. NAPA challenges the evaluation of Jay's past performance and the agency's past performance/price tradeoff resulting in the award to an offeror whose proposal was lower rated and lower priced. We deny the protest. An amended RFP was issued on an unrestricted basis on December 4, 1998. /1/ RFP amend. 2 (hereinafter "RFP"), at cover sheet. The RFP provided that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, past performance and price considered. RFP at 56. The RFP included the following two past performance subfactors: (1) current/similar previous jobs (quality of service, timeliness of performance, cost control, and customer satisfaction) and (2) business relations (source of supply references and financial references). Id. at 56-58. The basis for the agency's past performance evaluations would be customer satisfaction, supplier, and financial reference surveys completed for each offeror. Id. at 57-58. Color/adjectival ratings, which had corresponding narrative descriptions, would be assigned to the past performance subfactors ( e.g., blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, and red/unacceptable), and an overall past performance color/adjectival rating would be assigned to an offeror's proposal. Id. In determining the most advantageous proposal, the RFP stated that past performance would be considered significantly more important than price. Id. at 60. Finally, the RFP advised that the offeror with the lowest priced proposal or the offeror whose proposal received the highest past performance rating would not necessarily be awarded the contract. Id. at 59. Five offerors, including NAPA (the incumbent contractor) and Jay, submitted proposals by the December 21 closing time. As relevant here, the past performance ratings for the proposals of NAPA and Jay were as follows: NAPA Jay Current/Similar Blue/Exceptional Green/Acceptable Previous Jobs Business Green/Acceptable Blue/Exceptional Relations OVERALL Blue/Exceptional Green/Acceptable NAPA's total price was approximately 2.4 percent higher than Jay's total price. Agency Report, Tab 10, Final Proposal Analysis Report, at 3 rd-5th unnumbered pages. The past performance ratings were supported by narratives of an offeror's strengths and weaknesses based on information reported in customer satisfaction, supplier, and financial reference surveys. Regarding NAPA, the survey results reflected no weaknesses for the past performance subfactor of current/similar previous jobs. For this subfactor, the customer satisfaction surveys noted specific strengths for NAPA, including that the firm was knowledgeable, professional, and courteous, and that the quality of NAPA's service exceeded expectations; that NAPA timely performed in an outstanding manner, including delivery of ordered parts and maintenance of a backordered parts log; that NAPA exceeded all expectations in the area of cost control; and that NAPA performed in an overall outstanding manner. For the past performance subfactor of business relations, the supplier and financial references reported that NAPA pays within 30 days of required payment dates; that NAPA has a history of longtime good standing relationships with its suppliers; and that NAPA is an excellent, very professional bank customer. The supplier references did not indicate that NAPA took advantage of early payment discounts. Id.