Si-Nor, Inc., B-282064; B-282064.2, May 25, 1999

Si-Nor, Inc., B-282064; B-282064.2, May 25, 1999 TITLE: Si-Nor, Inc., B-282064; B-282064.2, May 25, 1999 BNUMBER: B-282064; B-282064.2 DATE: May 25, 1999 ********************************************************************** Si-Nor, Inc., B-282064; B-282064.2, May 25, 1999 Decision Matter of: Si-Nor, Inc. File: B-282064; B-282064.2 Date: May 25, 1999 Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., and Jeffrey I. Gdanski, Esq., for the protester. John E. Lariccia, Esq., and C. Gordon Jones, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Determination that higher-priced proposal rated higher under past performance subfactor (compared to protester's) offered best value to government cannot be determined reasonable where price was approximately twice as important as past performance under solicitation's evaluation scheme, and documentation of tradeoff decision does not explain why agency considered awardee's evaluation advantage under past performance sufficient to offset protester's lower offered price. DECISION 1. Si-Nor, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to U.S. Eagle, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F64605-98-R0032, for refuse collection and disposal services at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. 2. We sustain the protest. 3. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for an 8-month base period, with four 1-year options. No technical proposals were required, but each offeror was required to submit financial references and at least three past performance references for service contracts exceeding $100,000 in revenues annually on which it had performed as prime contractor during the period November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1998. Addendum to RFP para. 1(b), at 1; RFP, amend. 0003, Preproposal Conference Minutes sect. 7a and d; RFP, Performance Reference Information Sheet. Offers were to be evaluated based on (1) past performance/experience and (2) price/cost, which were to be approximately equal in weight. Past performance and experience also were to be approximately equal in weight. Agency Report, Tab 7, Decision Document, Feb. 24, 1999, at 1st unnumbered page, and Decision Document (original), at 1st unnumbered page. Award was to be made on a best value basis. RFP sect. I(a), at 1. Past performance was to be assessed to determine offerors' relative capability and trustworthiness, and thus their relative reliability to perform the contract requirements, and experience was to be evaluated to assess offerors' experience in performing work on similar refuse collection and disposal services contracts. RFP sect. I(a)(1), at 1. 4. Five offers were received. Based on the evaluation, the source selection official determined that Eagle's proposal represented the best value to the government. Although Si-Nor's evaluated price ($7,974,020) was slightly lower than Eagle's ($8,029,688), and both proposals were rated low risk for experience, Si-Nor's proposal was rated only satisfactory for past performance, while Eagle's was rated outstanding. In comparing Eagle's proposal to Si-Nor's, the selection official stated as follows: 5. I have determined [Eagle]'s proposal to be of better value than [Si-Nor]'s proposal. [Eagle] received an outstanding past performance rating compared to the satisfactory rating given [Si-Nor]. [Eagle]'s quality control and business relations, in particular, received laudatory comments from customers. I believe that [Eagle]'s outstanding past performance outweighs the lower price offered by [Si-Nor], a difference of $7,944 (Basic Period). 6. Agency Report, Tab 7, Decision Document (Original), at 2nd unnumbered page. 7. Upon learning of the resulting award to Eagle, Si-Nor first filed an agency-level protest, and then later filed a protest with our Office, arguing in part that the agency improperly had failed to apply a small disadvantaged business (SDB) evaluation adjustment to prices. The agency agreed, concluding that Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.219-23, which provides for addition of an evaluation factor to all non-SDB offers for evaluation purposes, erroneously had been omitted from the RFP. The agency then reevaluated prices, applying a 10-percent factor to the prices of offers from non-SDBs (that is, all offers other than Si-Nor's, since Si-Nor was the only SDB offeror).