Support Services, Inc., B-282407; B-282407.2, July 8, 1999

Support Services, Inc., B-282407; B-282407.2, July 8, 1999 TITLE: Support Services, Inc., B-282407; B-282407.2, July 8, 1999 BNUMBER: B-282407; B-282407.2 DATE: July 8, 1999 ********************************************************************** Support Services, Inc., B-282407; B-282407.2, July 8, 1999 Decision Matter of: Support Services, Inc. File: B-282407; B-282407.2 Date: July 8, 1999 William T. Welch, Esq., and William B. Barton, Jr., Esq., Barton, Mountain & Tolle, for the protester. Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., Moore, Hennessy & Freeman, for DGR Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Peter Ries, Esq., and Richard G. Welsh, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against evaluation of protester's past performance/relevant experience is denied where (1) notwithstanding statement in contemporaneous evaluation record concerning number of references considered, record as a whole indicates that all relevant references furnished by the protester were considered, (2) agency reasonably evaluated awardee's experience with larger housing maintenance contracts more favorably than protester's, and (3) agency reasonably determined that protester's experience performing interstate rest area maintenance work was not relevant, since contract to be awarded was for housing maintenance and repair. DECISION Support Services, Inc. (SSI) protests the Naval Facilities Engineering Command's award of a contract to DGR Associates, Inc., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N68950-99-Q-0183, for maintenance and repair of 240 military family housing units at the Marine Corps Support Activity in Belton, Missouri. [1] SSI challenges the evaluation of past performance/relevant experience and argues that the award was based on a defective price/past performance tradeoff. We deny the protest. The RFQ provided for award to the responsible vendor whose conforming submission was most advantageous to the government, price and past performance/relevant experience considered. The RFQ stated that the agency would "review information about the offerors' past performance within the last five years on work that is similar to this solicitation in size, scope, and complexity," and that "[m]ore recent and relevant experience may be viewed more favorably." RFQ at 19. Vendors were to submit past performance narratives and references for "three (3) to five (5) housing maintenance projects within the last five years" that "demonstrate required capability and experience to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation." RFQ at 19, 29. This information was to be submitted on a "Reference Questionnaire" form (included in the RFQ) which included a section designated for "government use," in which quality, timeliness, cost control, customer satisfaction, and safety criteria were to be rated on a scale of poor, fair, good, and excellent. (In the actual evaluation, the contracting officer contacted the references and noted their ratings on the form.) The solicitation further provided that "[p]rice [was to be] considered relatively more important than past performance." RFQ at 19. The agency received quotations from nine vendors, including SSI and DGR. SSI submitted the low quote of $[deleted], while DGR submitted the second low quote of $1,098,500.80. After performing a price/past performance analysis of the three low quotes, the contracting officer determined that DGR‘s was the most advantageous to the government based on the firm's more extensive experience and superior past performance reference ratings (an average rating of "good +" compared to SSI's average of "good"). Determination of Responsibility and Price Reasonableness, Mar. 22, 1999, at 3. [2] Specifically, the contracting officer determined that DGR "demonstrated more experience in the number of references provided and the number of housing units under each contract than provided by Support Services," and noted that "DGR's references rated them higher than the references rated Support Services." Id. Upon learning of the resulting award to DGR, and after being debriefed by the agency, SSI filed this protest with our Office. SSI argues that the agency misevaluated past performance/relevant experience and failed to give greater weight to price in the price/past performance tradeoff as required by the RFQ. In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Environmental Affairs Management, Inc., B-277270, Sept. 23, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 93 at 4.