Beneco Enterprises, Inc., B-283512.3, July 10, 2000

B-283512.3 Jul 10, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was equal to the extensive. Was unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. Finding that the past performance evaluation of Hammer was unreasonable. Beneco protests that the agency's reevaluation and new source selection decision are unreasonable. Offerors that are newly formed entities without prior contracts should list contracts and subcontracts as required above for all key personnel. b. The Government will issue a past performance survey to those individuals and organizations you have specified. General performance information will be obtained from the references. 2. Each offeror will be evaluated on his/her performance under existing and prior contracts for similar construction work. View Decision Matter of: Beneco Enterprises, Inc. File: B-283512.3 Date: July 10, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Beneco Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Hammer LGC, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT01-99-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army for construction services at Fort Rucker, Alabama. We previously sustained Beneco's protest of an award to Hammer under this RFP in Beneco Enters., Inc., B-283512, Dec. 3, 1999, 2000 CPD Para. __, finding that the past performance evaluation of Hammer was unreasonable, and recommending that the agency reevaluate proposals under the past performance factor and make a new source selection decision. Beneco protests that the agency's reevaluation and new source selection decision are unreasonable. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued March 10, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity job order contract (JOC) for the construction services for 1 year with 4 option years. RFP at B-3 to B-6 and amend. 0002, at C-1. The RFP stated that award would be based on the best overall value to the government based on the technical, past performance and price evaluation factors, with technical being "somewhat more important" than past performance, past performance being "slightly more important" than price, and technical and past performance combined being "significantly more important than price." /1/ RFP amend. 0002, at M-2. Under past performance, the RFP stated five subfactors -- quality of service, timeliness of performance, cost control, business relations, and customer satisfaction -- and provided that past performance information would be used to conduct a performance risk assessment as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the contract. RFP amend. 0002, at M-4. RFP Sec. L.8 provided instructions on the format and content of proposals, and stated the following: PAST PERFORMANCE 1. Offerors shall submit the following information as part of their proposal: a. A list of all contracts and subcontracts awarded during the past three years. Contracts listed may include those entered into with the Federal Government, agencies of the state and local governments and commercial customers. Offerors that are newly formed entities without prior contracts should list contracts and subcontracts as required above for all key personnel. b. To comply with [the above paragraph], offeror shall use the record format located at [RFP] Attachment E. 1. Based upon the information provided in each past performance record [RFP attach. E], the Government will issue a past performance survey to those individuals and organizations you have specified. The survey shall be used to evaluate your firm's past performance. The offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the contracts and subcontracts identified in paragraph b.(1) above and corrective actions taken to resolve those problems. Offerors should not provide general information to their performance on the identified contracts. General performance information will be obtained from the references. 2. Each offeror will be evaluated on his/her performance under existing and prior contracts for similar construction work. Performance information will be used for both responsibility determinations and as an evaluation factor against which offerors' relative ranking will be compared to assure best value to the Government. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size and complexity of the procurement under consideration. The Past Performance Survey identified in [RFP] Attachment F will be used to collect this information. References other than those identified by the offeror may be contacted by the Government with the information received used in the evaluation of the offeror's past performance. RFP amend. 0002, at L-12, L-13 (emphasis added). The top two proposals of those received and evaluated by the Army were those of Beneco and Hammer.