Browning Ferris Industries of Hawaii, Inc., B-281285, January

B-281285 Jan 21, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that contracting agency's evaluation of awardee's proposal was flawed and otherwise improper is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation factors. Agency was not required to conduct a more extensive investigation of the awardee's past performance as a result of False Claims Act litigation involving the awardee. Evaluation of protester's proposal was reasonable where it was performed in accordance with stated evaluation factors and reflected valid criticisms of protester's past performance and proposed subcontracting commitments. 3. Agency reasonably may evaluate an offer as posing a higher past performance risk where the offeror's performance history as stated in its proposal is less relevant to the solicited requirements than that of offerors rated as having a low performance risk. View Decision Matter of: Browning Ferris Industries of Hawaii, Inc. File: B-281285 Date: January 21, 1999 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Browning Ferris Industries of Hawaii, Inc. (BFI) protests the award of a contract to Honolulu Disposal Services, Inc. (HDS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62755-98-R-7014, issued by the Department of the Navy, to obtain refuse collection services at various military installations on Oahu, Hawaii. BFI contends that the agency's past performance and small business evaluations were flawed and that, as a consequence, the agency failed to award the contract on the basis of the best value to the government, as required by the RFP. We deny the protest. The RFP, which consolidates two existing refuse service contracts, was issued on an unrestricted basis and contemplated award of a contract for a base period and four 1-year options. The solicitation provided a best value basis for award and identified the following evaluation factors: past performance, small business, and price. Past performance was of greater importance than the small business factor, and the past performance and small business factors combined were of equal importance to price. RFP, Amend. No. 0002, Sec. M.2, M.5. As relevant here, past performance was to be evaluated on similar contracts completed within the past 3 years or currently in progress using a past performance survey to determine the quality of work previously performed and to assess the relative capability of the offeror to effectively accomplish the solicitation requirements. In addition, the solicitation advised that the agency would obtain past information from other sources. The past performance factor was comprised of the following equally weighted past performance elements: (1) quality of service, (2) schedule, (3) business relations, and (4) management of key personnel. /1/ Id. Under the small business evaluation factor, large business offerors were to submit (1) a subcontracting plan in which the offeror identifies and commits to utilizing small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), and historically black college and university or minority institution (HBCU/MI), and (2) a past performance report on five most recently completed contracts showing compliance with the firm's plan for the utilization of SB, SDB, WOSB, and/or HBCU/MI; any ratings obtained on implementation of subcontracting plans on five recently completed Department of Defense (DOD) contracts; and information on existing or pending mentor-protege agreements. RFP, Amend. 0002, Sec. M.5.2. Five firms, including BFI and HDS, submitted initial proposals. /2/ The agency included the proposals of the protester and HDS in the competitive range; conducted discussions and evaluated revised proposals; and requested and evaluated final proposal revisions. The final evaluation results for the three remaining competitive range offerors were as follows: CRITERIA HDS BFI [DELETED] Past Performance Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Past Perf. Risk /3/ Low Moderate Low Small Business Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Total Price $10,887,956.57 [DELETED] [DELETED] Post-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum, Sept. 30, 1998, at 5. Based on the final evaluation results, the contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA), selected HDS for award as providing the best value to the government. In this regard, the Post-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum, approved by the SSA, noted that: HDS and [DELETED] received overall Satisfactory ratings with low risk. BFI received an overall Satisfactory rating with moderate risk since the projects listed in their references were smaller in size to the subject solicitation, and some doubt exists that they can perform satisfactorily. None of the proposals contained anything exceeding the requirements, so there are no tradeoffs to consider or benefits associated with a higher price.