Acepex Management Corporation, B-283080; B-283080.2; B-283080.3, October 4, 1999

Acepex Management Corporation, B-283080; B-283080.2; B-283080.3, October 4, 1999 TITLE: Acepex Management Corporation, B-283080; B-283080.2; B-283080.3, October 4, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283080; B-283080.2; B-283080.3 DATE: October 4, 1999 ********************************************************************** Acepex Management Corporation, B-283080; B-283080.2; B-283080.3, October 4, 1999 Decision Matter of: Acepex Management Corporation File: B-283080; B-283080.2; B-283080.3 Date: October 4, 1999 James F. Nagle, Esq., and W. Gregory Guedel, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, for the protester. J. Michael Morgan, Esq., Lohf, Shaiman & Jacobs, for Kleen-Tech Building Services, Inc., the intervenor. Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the awardee's present and past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable; an agency has the discretion in evaluating present and past performance to determine the scope of the performance histories to be considered provided that all proposals are evaluated on the same basis and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. The record of the agency's evaluation of the offerors' present and past performance was adequate where the documentation allowed our Office to review the agency's actions and determinations, and reach a reasoned conclusion as to the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation and source selection. 3. Agency's post-award, post-protest communications with the awardee were not discussions where the awardee was neither provided the opportunity nor did it attempt to modify its proposal. 4. Protest that the agency improperly permitted the assignment of the contract to the awardee's affiliate (where the awardee was merged into its affiliate) is a matter of contract administration because it involves a preexisting contract and there is no evidence that the agency awarded the contract with the intention of allowing for its assignment. DECISION Acepex Management Corporation protests the award of a contract to Kleen-Tech Support Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04700-99-R-0014, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for custodial services at Edwards Air Force Base, California. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period with two 1-year options. RFP at 2-7. The successful contractor is required to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, vehicles, supervision and other items to perform the custodial services. RFP Performance Work Statement, at 1. Offerors were advised that the agency would "utilize the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) technique" to arrive at a best value award decision under which the performance risk ratings were considered significantly more important than price. The 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 rating of exceptional/high confidence, very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, marginal/little confidence, or unsatisfactory/no confidence. The RFP listed "types of information," such as "[q]uality of service" and "[t]imeliness of performance" that would be considered in determining the performance risk ratings. RFP at M-1, M-2. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals. The instructions requested, among other things, that offerors complete the RFP's price schedule and include a statement detailing any exceptions taken to the terms of the solicitation. Offerors were also to submit a list of at least three "contracts or subcontracts performed for the same or similar kind of work described in [the] solicitation that have been issued within the last five (5) years." The RFP added here that the present and past performance information provided "may include data on services performed by other divisions, corporate management, critical subcontractors, or teaming subcontractors if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed service," and specified that the present and past performance information submission was limited to four pages in length. RFP at L-1, L-2. The agency received 41 proposals by the RFP's closing date. Kleen-Tech's and Acepex's proposals were the lowest-priced (at $2,131,190) and fifth lowest-priced (at $3,072,546), respectively, of the 12 proposals that received performance risk ratings of exceptional/high confidence. Agency Report, Tab 21, Price Competition Memorandum, attach. 1.