Ideal Electronic Security Company, Inc., B-283398, November 10, 1999

B-283398 Nov 10, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging past performance evaluation and resulting source selection decision is denied where. Both of which support agency's determination that proposals were technically equal and that lowest-priced proposal therefore represented best value to the government. An offeror "must demonstrate performance of at least four (4) contracts of a similar nature within the past three years" and that "[s]ervices are considered similar if the functions. Control exercised by the contractor were essentially the same as required by the solicitation.". The RFP advised that "[f]ailure to meet this requirement will render the offer technically unacceptable" and. That if the requirement was met. View Decision Matter of: Ideal Electronic Security Company, Inc. File: B-283398 Date: November 10, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ideal Electronic Security Company, Inc., the incumbent contractor, protests the award of a contract to M.C. Dean under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS11P-99-ZGC-2001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for maintenance of security equipment at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center (RRB). Ideal argues that GSA improperly failed to conduct a qualitative evaluation of past performance, as required by the RFP, and that the record therefore does not support the source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, requested fixed-price offers for certain required personnel, materials, supplies and equipment, for a base and 4 option years, to maintain, support, inspect, and repair the RRB's integrated computerized security system. The solicitation provided for award on the basis of the best value to the government, considering price and past performance. /1/ Under past performance, the solicitation provided that, in order to be considered minimally acceptable, an offeror "must demonstrate performance of at least four (4) contracts of a similar nature within the past three years" and that "[s]ervices are considered similar if the functions, responsibilities, and control exercised by the contractor were essentially the same as required by the solicitation." RFP amend. 01, Sec. M.2.B, at IV-M. The RFP advised that "[f]ailure to meet this requirement will render the offer technically unacceptable" and, alternatively, that if the requirement was met, "the Government will evaluate the information to determine the quality of the offeror's past performance," "considering timeliness and technical success." Id. In this regard, the RFP included a "Performance Evaluation" form, for submission by the offerors, that was to include specific past performance information on each identified contract, including references, complexity of work, and description/location of work. RFP amend. 01, Sec. L.9.A, at IV-L-4 and exh. 3, at III-J-14. The agency issued the RFP on a limited competition basis to six firms in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (Aug. 20, 1999). All six firms submitted proposals. M.C. Dean's was low at $1,426,810, and Ideal's was second-low at $1,534,363. (The other proposals are not relevant here.) Based on the submitted past performance information, the contracting officer determined that all firms met the minimum technical requirement of four similar contracts within the past 3 years. He then proceeded to evaluate the quality of past performance based on his review of comments from telephone interviews conducted with Ideal's and M.C. Dean's submitted contract references. These interviews were conducted by a different agency administrative assistant for each firm. The questions posed in the interviews were as follows: (1) "How was the offeror's overall contract performance?"; (2) "Did the offeror perform work in a timely manner?"; and (3) "Did the offeror provide adequate staffing?" Supplemental Agency Report, Declarations of Administrative Assistants (DAA), Sept. 24, 1999. The agency administrative assistants who conducted the interviews typed comments from the interviewees on "Performance Reference" sheets. Id. The interview comments documented from M.C. Dean's four contract references were as follows: (1) "It was a complex project[;] M.C. Dean was above average as a contractor[;] [t]here was a staffing problem for a brief period"; (2) "It was a 50 million dollar contract[;] M.C. Dean maintained the best working contract with few, if any problems[;] [i]t was near Perfect"; (3) "M.C. Dean was a good contractor[;] [t]here was a 3-month period w[h]ere staffing was a problem[;] [i]t was resolved, and the contract continued successfully"; and (4) "M.C. Dean did a fine job." Performance Reference Sheets for M.C. Dean. Also during the interviews, the agency administrative assistants obtained further explanation from the first and third interviewees concerning their comments on M.C. Dean. M.C.