Integrity Management Services, Inc., B-283094.2, May 3, 2000

B-283094.2 May 03, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights General Accounting Office will not consider protest that Small Business Administration (SBA) failed to consider vital information bearing on awardee's responsibility in issuing it a certificate of competency where the allegedly vital information does not concern awardee's compliance with a definitive responsibility criterion. 2. The contract was awarded to PCT after the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued it a certificate of competency (COC). Which was set aside for small. One of the factors to be considered in the technical evaluation of proposals was the offeror's relevant experience and past performance. /1/ The solicitation advised that in the event that an offeror's past performance were determined unacceptable. View Decision Matter of: Integrity Management Services, Inc. File: B-283094.2 Date: May 3, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Integrity Management Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to PCT Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT57-98-R-0050, issued by the Department of the Army for hospital housekeeping services for various medical facilities located at Forts Eustis, Lee, Monroe and Story in Virginia. The contract was awarded to PCT after the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued it a certificate of competency (COC). The protester contends that in issuing the COC the SBA failed to consider vital information bearing on PCT's responsibility. The protester also argues that the agency failed to conduct an adequate price realism analysis. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was set aside for small, minority-owned businesses participating in the SBA's competitive 8(a) program, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base and 4 option years to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. One of the factors to be considered in the technical evaluation of proposals was the offeror's relevant experience and past performance. /1/ The solicitation advised that in the event that an offeror's past performance were determined unacceptable, the matter would be referred to the SBA for a determination regarding issuance of a COC. RFP Sec. M.3.a.4. The RFP also provided for a price analysis to determine if the offeror's pricing reflected an understanding of the scope of the work and supported the proposed method of performance. RFP Sec. M.3.b. Eleven proposals were received by the April 13, 1999 closing date. W.D. Enterprises, Inc.'s offer was lowest in price, while PCT's and Integrity's were second and fifth low, respectively. The contracting officer determined that W.D. Enterprises was nonresponsible and referred the matter to the SBA for possible issuance of a COC. The SBA declined to issue a COC, whereupon the agency conducted a technical evaluation and price analysis of PCT's proposal. The contracting officer determined that PCT's proposal showed that it understood the scope of the effort and that its price was realistic. Agency Report at 6. She further determined that PCT was nonresponsible, however, and accordingly referred the matter to the SBA. In her Determination of Contractor Responsibility, the contracting officer noted that she had found PCT nonresponsible based on certain adverse past performance information furnished by its references. After reviewing the contracting officer's determination, the past performance questionnaires furnished by the references, and PCT's COC application, the SBA industrial specialist concluded that "most [of the problems described in the questionnaires] were minor, or attributable to the financial instability PCT previously encountered." Summary of COC Review at 1. Both the industrial specialist and SBA's financial specialist, who had reviewed PCT's financial situation, recommended issuance of a COC. The COC was issued on December 8, and the Army awarded PCT a contract on January 21, 2000. Integrity protests the award to PCT, /2/ arguing that the SBA failed to consider vital information bearing on that firm's responsibility in issuing it a COC. In this regard, the protester contends that the Army failed to bring to the SBA's attention two recent decisions by our Office, PCT Servs., Inc., B-279168, May 12, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 152, and PCT Servs., Inc., B-281046, B-281012.2, Dec. 22, 1998, 99-1 CPD Para. 10, which discuss ratings made in 1997 and 1998 of PCT's performance on many of the same contracts considered by the SBA in evaluating PCT's eligibility for a COC here.