U. S. Constructors, Inc., B-282776, July 21, 1999

B-282776 Jul 21, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. The experience and past performance factor was weighted at 40 percent and the other three factors were each weighted at 20 percent. Offerors were responsible for obtaining past performance and experience information for similar/comparable projects performed. Copies of which were included in the solicitation package. Were to be completed by references and submitted to the offeror in sealed envelopes. The offeror was required to submit the sealed envelopes with its technical proposal. The agency would review the references to determine whether an offeror's performance on the majority of similar contracts was satisfactory or better. View Decision Matter of: U. S. Constructors, Inc. File: B-282776 Date: July 21, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION U.S. Constructors, Inc. (USC) protests the award of a contract to Dover Elevator Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-07P-99-UWC-0005, issued by the General Services Administration for elevator modernization at the Federal Building/Courthouse, Tyler, Texas. USC challenges the agency's decision not to communicate with it concerning its performance history. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, technical evaluation factors and price considered. RFP at 1. The RFP included the following technical evaluation factors: (1) experience and past performance; (2) number of similar/comparable projects completed; (3) quality of references; and (4) percentage of work to be performed by offeror. Id. at 5-6. The experience and past performance factor was weighted at 40 percent and the other three factors were each weighted at 20 percent. Each technical evaluation factor could receive a maximum raw score of 7 points, which then would be multiplied by the assigned factor weight. Under this evaluation scheme, an offeror's proposal could receive a maximum technical score of 700 points. Id. The RFP advised that award could be made without discussions. Id. at 1. As relevant here, the RFP advised that prior to the submission of proposals, offerors were responsible for obtaining past performance and experience information for similar/comparable projects performed. Id. at 4. The RFP instructed that past performance and experience questionnaires, copies of which were included in the solicitation package, were to be completed by references and submitted to the offeror in sealed envelopes; the offeror was required to submit the sealed envelopes with its technical proposal. Id. The agency's evaluation of proposals for technical evaluation factors 1 through 3 would be dependent upon information provided by the references. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 3. For example, for the experience and past performance factor, the agency would review the references to determine whether an offeror's performance on the majority of similar contracts was satisfactory or better, and whether the majority of contract references indicated that they would contract with the offeror again for the same services. RFP at 5. Similarly, the agency would review the references for the similarity/comparability of three projects completed within the past 5 years and to ensure that reference data was concurrent with information provided in the offeror's technical proposal. Id. Four firms, including USC and Dover, submitted initial proposals by the closing time on May 7, 1999. Only Dover submitted completed reference questionnaires in accordance with the terms of the RFP. Dover received one "excellent" and two "very good" ratings from its references. Agency Report, Tab 6C, at 1-3. In addition, two references commented that "[Dover] is very professional in [its] approach to this type work," and "[t]he ability to conform to the building schedules and the willingness to perform made Dover the clear choice for this project. Follow up to date has been great." Id. at 1-2. In contrast, USC listed its references, including a brief description of the project and work performed, but told the agency that "[y]ou can check with them [i.e., the references]." Agency Report, Tab 5A, USC Technical Proposal Cover Letter, May 6, 1999. USC stated that all of its projects in the last few years were government jobs, and "[the government references] will only give a rating to another government agency." Id. Although not required by the solicitation to do so, the contracting officer called USC's three listed references. The first reference from a Veterans Affairs medical center rated USC "poor," stating "Scheduling: poor compliance with contract schedule. Project Management: poor-do[es] not adhere to contract requirements-difficult to manage contractor . . . ." Agency Report, Tab 5C, at 1-2.