Buckeye Park Services, Inc., B-282082, June 1, 1999

B-282082 Jun 01, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive range was reasonable and consistent with solicitation that provided for a performance risk assessment of proposals. The prior performance problems were brought to the protester's attention during discussions. The agency advised offerors that it intended to award a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the Government. Buckeye was assigned high performance risk. There were three contracts at issue. All references were negative. The contracting officer determined that there was significant doubt that Buckeye could or would perform. If discussions are to be conducted. Buckeye presents nothing to show that the agency's evaluation of past performance and its consequent determination to exclude the protester from the competitive range was either unreasonable or inconsistent with solicitation criteria. View Decision Matter of: Buckeye Park Services, Inc. File: B-282082 Date: June 1, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Buckeye Park Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. F22600-99-R-0036, issued by the Department of the Air Force for ground maintenance at Keesler Air Force Base (AFB). Buckeye contends that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. On November 2, 1998, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed-price contract for an initial 6 -month contract, with four 1-year options. RFP at 2-16. The RFP required a contractor to provide all labor, materials, equipment, transportation, supervision, and other items and services necessary to perform grounds maintenance at Keesler in accordance with the performance work statement (PWS). RFP at 2, 5, 8, 11, 14. The agency advised offerors that it intended to award a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the Government, considering price and technical factors. RFP attach. 4, at 3. The RFP also provided for assessments of proposal risk and performance risk. The agency would first assess the risk associated with each proposal (proposal risk) with regard to accomplishment of the RFP requirements. Evaluators would then consider performance risk, "by identifying and reviewing relevant present and past performance and making an overall risk assessment of the offeror's ability to perform the proposed effort." RFP attach. 4, at 4. This assessment would represent evaluators' judgment of the probability of the offeror performing successfully, considering its demonstrated present and past performance. Evaluators would base their assessment of performance risk upon information submitted by offerors, regarding performance of comparable contracts in the prior 3 years. The agency cautioned offerors that the government would also use data obtained from other sources. Id. The Air Force had received 15 proposals by December 3, the date set for receipt of initial proposals. Agency Report, Tab 12, Source Selection Authority's Approval of and Contracting Officer's Determination of Competitive Range, at 2nd - 3rd unnumbered pages. Buckeye's received a low proposal risk assessment. Id. at 3rd unnumbered page. With regard to the assessment of performance risk, evaluators ascertained that two of the protester's five references fell outside the RFP's 3-year timeframe, and that the references at Cherry Point Naval Air Station and Keesler provided negative performance assessments. Buckeye was assigned high performance risk. Agency Report, Tab 8, Evaluation of Buckeye Parks Services, Inc., at 3-4; Agency Report, Tab 9, Notice of Adverse Performance Assessment, at 1. The agency notified Buckeye of the negative performance comments and requested that Buckeye respond to these comments. Buckeye responded by facsimile, with a memorandum dated January 17, generally challenging the negative assessments. Agency Report, Tab 10, Memorandum from Buckeye Park Services, Inc. to the Contracting Officer (Jan. 17, 1999). The agency discussed the evaluation and Buckeye's response with the references, conducting a teleconference with personnel at Cherry Point on January 20. Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts and Findings at 1. Cherry Point and Keesler confirmed their initial negative assessments. Agency Report, Tab 8, at 4-5. The agency's reevaluation of Buckeye's past performance, based on the additional information, did not result in any change in the original assessment of Buckeye as a high performance risk. Id. at 5. There were three contracts at issue, the Cherry Point contract and two at Keesler for the same work as the instant solicitation. /1/ The first Keesler contract had been awarded to Hubbard Commercial Mowing, Inc. (HCM); the protester purchased HCM and performed the final 6 months of the contract. Agency Report, Tab 8 at 3-4; Agency Report, Tab 12 at 3rd unnumbered page.