Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-282887, August 31, 1999

B-282887 Aug 31, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of solicitation provision indicating that past performance evaluation will consider only corporate past performance and not past performance of key personnel is denied. Olympus argues that the solicitation is defective because the past performance evaluation factor is limited to the past performance of the corporate offeror and excludes consideration of the past performance of proposed key personnel. The technical evaluation factors and subfactors are listed in descending order of importance as: 1. Private contracts and subcontracts it has held within the last 5 years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in progress which are of similar scope. Magnitude and complexity to that which is detailed in the RFP. View Decision Matter of: Olympus Building Services, Inc. File: B-282887 Date: August 31, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Olympus Building Services, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-99-R-1335, issued by the Department of the Navy for janitorial services at various buildings in the Department of Agriculture headquarters complex in Washington, D.C. Olympus argues that the solicitation is defective because the past performance evaluation factor is limited to the past performance of the corporate offeror and excludes consideration of the past performance of proposed key personnel. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-priced, indefinite-delivery/indefinite- quantity contract for a base year, with four 1-year options and provides for award on a best-value basis, with technical merit significantly more important than price. RFP Secs. F.2, L.2, M.3. The technical evaluation factors and subfactors are listed in descending order of importance as: 1. Management Approach 1.1 Management Structure and Organization 1.2 Key Personnel /1/ 1.3 Staffing 2. Quality Control 3. Past Performance 4. Technical Understanding, Approach, and Management 1. Janitorial Services 4.2 Additional Services RFP Sec. M.1. To assist in the past performance evaluation, the RFP, in part, specifically instructs the offeror to furnish: relevant experience and past performance information (limited to 5 contracts) describing its directly related or similar Federal, State and local Government, and private contracts and subcontracts it has held within the last 5 years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in progress which are of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to that which is detailed in the RFP. RFP Sec. L.7, Proposal Vol. II, Sec. I (a), at L-7, L-8. Before proposals were due, Olympus filed an agency-level protest arguing that the solicitation is defective because the past performance evaluation factor could be applied in a manner that restricts competition, thereby violating applicable statute and regulation. /2/ Thereafter, the agency issued amendment No. 0004 to clarify, among other things, how past performance will be evaluated, stating explicitly that past performance of key personnel will not be considered. /3/ In its subsequent protest to our Office, Olympus challenges the past performance evaluation factor as improperly restrictive of competition since it allegedly disadvantages newly formed companies such as itself, despite extensive prior "team" experience, by limiting consideration to the corporate experience of the offeror itself. Protester's Comments at 8. The protester maintains that it is entitled to receive full evaluation credit under the past performance factor because its president and key "team" employees have worked together on similar janitorial services contracts (although for a different firm). In the protester's view, the Navy has failed to provide any rationale for the solicitation's restrictive evaluation scheme. Id. at 2-4; Protest at 7-9. Agency acquisition officials have broad discretion in the selecting evaluation factors that will be used in an acquisition, and we will not object to the use of particular evaluation factors or an evaluation scheme so long as the factors used reasonably relate to the agency's needs in choosing a contractor that will best serve the government's interests. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.304; Micromass, Inc., B-278869, Mar. 24, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 93 at 3; Leon D. DeMatteis Constr. Corp., B-276877, July 30, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 36 at 3-4. As discussed below, we find the agency's evaluation approach under the past performance factor within the discretion afforded contracting officials. First, we reject as unfounded the protester's contention that the agency's exclusion of key personnel experience from the past performance assessment restricts competition. The solicitation here, consistent with FAR Sec. 15.305(a)(2)(iv), provides that offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.