PCT Services, Inc., B-281046; B-281012.2, December 22, 1998

PCT Services, Inc., B-281046; B-281012.2, December 22, 1998 BNUMBER: B-281046; B-281012.2 DATE: December 22, 1998 TITLE: PCT Services, Inc., B-281046; B-281012.2, December 22, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:PCT Services, Inc. File: B-281046; B-281012.2 Date:December 22, 1998 Thomas E. Abernathy IV, Esq., Smith, Currie & Hancock, for the protester. John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Patrick F. Corbin, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that information supporting high performance risk rating is inaccurate, and that rating therefore was improper, is denied where: (1) supporting information is substantial and well documented, and was obtained from most recent, and best-informed sources available regarding protester's performance; (2) there is no basis on the face of the information to question its accuracy; and (3) protester has not established that the agency lacked a reasonable basis with respect to any of the deficiencies cited. DECISION PCT Services, Inc. protests the award of contracts by the Department of the Air Force for hospital aseptic management system (HAMS) services to: (1) Integrity Management Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41622-98-R-0022, to serve Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Florida; (2) Rite-Way Services, under RFP No. F41622-98-R-0023, to serve Kirtland AFB, New Mexico; (3) Rite-Way Services, under RFP No. F41622-98-R-0026, to serve the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado and F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming; and (4) Harry A. Stroh Associates, Inc. under RFP No. F41622-98-R-0027, to serve Keesler AFB, Mississippi and Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. PCT submitted the low-priced offer under each solicitation, and argues that it improperly was denied the awards based on an unjustified high-risk performance rating in the evaluation. We deny the protest. The RFPs, which had identical provisions, provided for award of fixed-price contracts for a base period with four 1-year options. The RFPs stated that award would be made on a best value basis using the following evaluation factors: technical, past performance and price. RFP, Evaluation at 1. The technical factor was most important, and past performance and price were equally weighted. RFP, Evaluation at 3. Offerors were required to submit past performance information for relevant contracts performed within the past 2 years. RFP, Instructions to Offerors at 5, sec. 1(b)2. Technically acceptable proposals would receive a high, moderate, low, or not applicable risk rating based on the evaluators' review of present and past performance information provided in the proposal or obtained through the use of simplified questionnaires, and data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. RFP, Evaluation at 2. A best value analysis then would be made based on a tradeoff between price and past performance. RFP, Evaluation at 3. The RFP provided that award might be made to other than the technically acceptable, lowest evaluated price offeror if that offeror were judged to have a moderate, high, or not applicable performance risk rating. Id. PCT's proposal on each of the solicitations was the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal received. However, analysis of past performance evaluation data obtained and information supplied by PCT resulted in a high performance risk rating. The tradeoff analysis resulted in a determination that the awardees' offers represented the best value to the government, despite PCT's lower price, in each case. In evaluating PCT's performance risk, the agency reviewed: (1) PCT's most recent past performance evaluation (in connection with a contract award for Hill, Luke and MacDill AFBs), completed on January 20, 1998; (2) updated performance information concerning contracts at Patrick, Dover (two of the contracts included in the January 1998 evaluation) and Kirtland AFBs, sources provided by PCT; and (3) information supplied by PCT in its proposal and, later, in rebuttal to deficiencies cited from the Dover and Kirtland information. In the January 1998 evaluation, PCT received a moderate risk rating based on a generally poor performance record, PCT's refusal to recognize or correct performance deficiencies (identified by the quality assurance evaluators (QAE) who answered the questionnaires), and its refusal to comply with contract requirements regarding change proposals.