Inland Service Corporation, B-282272, June 21, 1999

B-282272 Jun 21, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal under past performance factor based on past performance information provided by protester's reference for contract that was similar in scope to current requirements. Inland maintains that the award was improper because the agency's evaluation of its past performance was flawed. To the responsible firm whose offer was found most advantageous to the government. Were approximately equal in importance to price. The performance-price tradeoff (PPT) technique was to be used to arrive at a best value award decision. Were received. All were determined acceptable. Inland's proposal was third low at $5. While UGM's was fourth low at $5. She declined to complete a past performance questionnaire because there was an outstanding claim by Inland concerning that contract. View Decision Matter of: Inland Service Corporation File: B-282272 Date: June 21, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Inland Service Corporation protests the award of a contract to U.S. Grounds Maintenance, Inc. (UGM), under request for proposals (RFP) No. F48608-99-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for grounds maintenance at F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB), Wyoming. Inland maintains that the award was improper because the agency's evaluation of its past performance was flawed. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price requirements contract for 6 months, with five 1-year options, to the responsible firm whose offer was found most advantageous to the government, considering past performance and executed proposal documentation which, combined, were approximately equal in importance to price. RFP Sec. E, at 33. The performance-price tradeoff (PPT) technique was to be used to arrive at a best value award decision. Id. Application of this technique involves determining the acceptability of each offeror's proposal, ranking all acceptable proposals by evaluated price, and assigning the proposals a performance risk assessment rating of low, moderate, high, or not applicable. Id. The RFP advised that, although the agency reserved the right to conduct discussions if necessary, it planned to make award on the basis of initial proposals. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.212-1 (incorporated, with tailoring, in RFP at 32). Thirteen proposals, including Inland's and UGM's, were received, and all were determined acceptable. Inland's proposal was third low at $5,410,928.80, while UGM's was fourth low at $5,749,638.36. (The lowest and second low offerors both received high performance risk ratings.) Agency Report, encl. 7, at 3-5. In assessing Inland's past performance risk, the Air Force called the contracting officer at Goodfellow AFB in Texas, one of the references listed in Inland's proposal, where Inland recently had performed a grounds maintenance contract with requirements similar to those here. She declined to complete a past performance questionnaire because there was an outstanding claim by Inland concerning that contract, but did forward the 11 contract discrepancy reports (CDR) issued under the contract during the period from July 14, 1997 to March 3, 1998, Inland's written responses to the CDRs, and the government's final actions on the CDRs, which included several deductions (totaling $2,772.85) from Inland's contract payments. She also stated that Goodfellow AFB had decided not to exercise the third option under Inland's contract. Based on this information, the agency assigned Inland's proposal a moderate risk rating. Memorandum of Law at 3-4. UGM's proposal received a low risk rating, and the agency determined that this rendered UGM's proposal the best value despite its higher price. Agency Report, encl. 7, Price Analysis Report, at 6. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Inland argues that assigning Inland's proposal a moderate risk rating was unreasonable, since it was based on only one reference involving CDRs amounting to only $2,772.85 on a contract exceeding $1 million, that reference did not even complete a questionnaire, and a number of the questionnaires completed by Inland's other references indicated that Inland did not present a performance risk. An agency's evaluation of past performance may be based on its reasonable perception of inadequate prior performance, even where the contractor disputes the agency's interpretation of the facts. Quality Fabricators, Inc., B-271431, B-271431.3, June 25, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 22 at 7. We will question the agency's conclusion in this regard only where it is not reasonably based or is undocumented. PMT Servs., Inc., B-270538.2, Apr. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 98 at 6. The evaluation of Inland's past performance was reasonable.