Eastco Building Services, Inc., B-283972.2, February 10, 2000

B-283972.2 Feb 10, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allegation that evaluation of protester's proposal under past performance factor was improper is without merit where agency conducted past performance evaluation in accordance with solicitation evaluation scheme and. There is no evidence of involvement in the evaluation or award decision by agency employee protester believes is biased against it. 2. That the price/technical tradeoff was improper. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the government. Which were of equal importance. Were significantly more important than price. Price was to be evaluated based on the offeror's base and option year prices for all four buildings. View Decision Matter of: Eastco Building Services, Inc. File: B-283972.2 Date: February 10, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Eastco Building Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-04P-99-LCC-0030, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for janitorial services in four government buildings in Tampa, Florida. The protester primarily argues that GSA improperly evaluated its proposal due to bias, and that the price/technical tradeoff was improper. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for custodial and related services for a 1-year base period, with four 1-year options. RFP at 6, amend. 1 at 1, amend. 4 at 7-9. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the government, based on three factors: (1) price, (2) past performance, and (3) management plan and approach; the technical factors, which were of equal importance, were significantly more important than price. RFP at 114. Price was to be evaluated based on the offeror's base and option year prices for all four buildings. Id. Twenty proposals were received. Eastco's proposal, priced at $2,637,100, received ratings of 2 (above standard/very good) under all three factors, and was the seventh-highest rated proposal; Wilson 5's proposal, priced at $2,834,400, received ratings of 1 (exceptional/very good) under all factors, and was the highest-rated proposal. /1/ Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, Consensus Ratings, at 1. Based on the results of the evaluation, the contracting officer determined that Wilson 5's proposal was most advantageous to the government and made award to the firm. AR, Tab 10, Summary of Evaluation, at 16. This protest followed. PAST PERFORMANCE Eastco challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the past performance factor on the basis that its rating was unduly influenced by a GSA employee. While the alleged facts are not entirely clear from its submissions, Eastco seems to assert that a GSA contracting officer's representative (COR) involved in administering Eastco's incumbent contract is biased against Eastco, as evidenced by his derogatory comments about Eastco in connection with a prior solicitation. Eastco maintains that the COR had an undue influence on its past performance rating here because, in contacting Eastco's references, the agency contacted only GSA employees who, Eastco apparently believes, would more likely be influenced by the COR's biased views than non-GSA employees. Eastco believes that, had non-GSA references been contacted, they would have provided more favorable responses and its proposal would have received a past performance rating of exceptional/very good, rather than above standard/very good. Protest at 4; Comments at 1, 2, 4-6. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision, our review is confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and in a way consistent with the stated evaluation factors. NAHB Research Center, Inc., B-278876.2, May 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 150 at 3. On its face, the evaluation of Eastco's proposal under the past performance factor was reasonable and consistent with the RFP. The RFP stated that the "government will check at least three references" and can consider "sources of information other than those listed." RFP Sec. B, at 111. Since the RFP provided neither that GSA would contact certain references, nor that it would not contact others, GSA was free to contact its own personnel. The record shows that GSA contacted three GSA employees regarding Eastco's performance on prior janitorial contracts. These individuals provided both favorable and unfavorable responses--one concluded that she would recommend Eastco to the government, one cited supervision and staffing problems in stating that he would not recommend Eastco, and the third, citing the issuance of a cure notice, stated that "yes & no. I need more of a track record to decide." AR, Tab 4, Eastco's Reference Checks, at 1-9.