Universal Fabric Structures, Inc., B-284032, February 10, 2000

B-284032 Feb 10, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest against agency's evaluation of awardee's past performance is denied where record shows that agency had a reasonable basis for assigning an overall excellent rating to the firm's past performance. The shelters are essentially portable metal frame and fabric membrane structures that will be used to create a climate-controlled environment for performing maintenance on the B-2 bomber. These devices are necessary because the Air Force currently has no climate-controlled hangars at sites other than the home base for the aircraft. Easily erected shelter system that will enable it to perform aircraft maintenance anywhere in the world. The evaluation factors were past performance. Current contracts were those performed within the last 5 years that had a dollar value of at least $500. View Decision Matter of: Universal Fabric Structures, Inc. File: B-284032 Date: February 10, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Universal Fabric Structures, Inc. protests the award of a contract to American Spaceframe Fabricators, Inc. (ASFI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08635-99-R-0077, issued by the Department of the Air Force for portable B-2 bomber shelter systems. Universal argues that the agency misevaluated ASFI's past performance. /1/ We deny the protest. The RFP sought fixed-price offers for both a single unit for qualification testing and several additional optional production units. The shelters are essentially portable metal frame and fabric membrane structures that will be used to create a climate-controlled environment for performing maintenance on the B-2 bomber. According to the agency report, these devices are necessary because the Air Force currently has no climate-controlled hangars at sites other than the home base for the aircraft, and the agency requires a transportable, easily erected shelter system that will enable it to perform aircraft maintenance anywhere in the world. Air Force Legal Memorandum at 1-2. The RFP provided that the Air Force would award a contract to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the best overall value to the government considering cost/price and several non-cost/price factors. RFP at M-1. The evaluation factors were past performance, mission capability, cost/price and proposal risk, with past performance and mission capability being equal in importance, and past performance, mission capability and proposal risk being, in combination, significantly more important than cost/price. RFP at M-2. The RFP stated that, for purposes of evaluating past performance, the agency would consider current and past contracts of the offeror and predecessor concerns, as well as key employee and subcontractor relevant experience. RFP at M-3. Current contracts were those performed within the last 5 years that had a dollar value of at least $500,000. RFP at L-6. The agency received several proposals, four of which were included in the competitive range. Detailed discussions were conducted with the competitive range offerors, after which the agency solicited two final proposal revisions (FPR). The record shows that after the second FPR, ASFI's proposal was the lowest priced and Universal's the second lowest priced. Proposal Analysis Report at 17. As for the past performance evaluation of ASFI's proposal--the subject of the protest--the record shows that ASFI received an exceptional rating; the agency also found that there was a high probability that the firm would successfully complete the contract. The Air Force based ASFI's rating on a review of four prior contracts. The record shows that the firm had provided information on five prior contracts, and that the agency was able to gather complete information relating to four of them. Agency Report, Exh. 16. On the basis of ASFI's past performance rating, the ratings assigned to ASFI's proposal for the remainder of the technical evaluation criteria, and ASFI's low price, the agency made award to it as having submitted the proposal offering the best overall value to the government. Universal contends that the agency improperly rated ASFI exceptional/high for past performance. In its original protest, Universal argued that the agency improperly failed to consider the performance of a predecessor concern to ASFI on a previous relevant Air Force contract. According to Universal, the predecessor concern, American Space Frame, Inc. (which filed for bankruptcy in July 1997), performed poorly on a 1997 contract for the construction of a hangar for the C-130 aircraft. Subsequent to receiving the agency report, Universal also argued that the agency improperly relied on contracts performed by American Space Frame, Inc.