Champion Service Corporation, B-284116, February 22, 2000

B-284116 Feb 22, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance is unobjectionable where the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the procedures stated in the solicitation. Protest that agency award decision resulted directly from improper price comparison is denied where. Champion contends that its past performance was improperly evaluated. That performance risk was improperly considered as an unstated. That the agency award decision was the direct result of an improper price comparison. Technically acceptable offeror if that offeror's performance risk rating was "very good" or lower. Each offeror was to provide for each contract. Proposals were ranked by price and. View Decision Matter of: Champion Service Corporation File: B-284116 Date: February 22, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Champion Service Corporation protests the award of a contract to SelRico Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F07603-99-R6009, an 8(a) set-aside issued by the Department of the Air Force for food attendant services at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Champion contends that its past performance was improperly evaluated, that performance risk was improperly considered as an unstated, separate evaluation factor, and that the agency award decision was the direct result of an improper price comparison. We deny the protest. The solicitation, posted to the electronic posting system on June 16, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with four 1-year option periods. RFP amend. 1, Schedule of Supplies/Services, at 3-7. The RFP, as amended, provided that the agency would perform a price/performance tradeoff to make a best value award decision. Id. at 17. The RFP provided that if the proposal from the low-priced, technically acceptable, responsible offeror received an "exceptional" performance risk rating, it would constitute the "best value," but that award could be made to other than the low, technically acceptable offeror if that offeror's performance risk rating was "very good" or lower. Id. The RFP stated that for purposes of making a performance risk rating, the contracting officer would obtain performance information by using questionnaires sent to references provided by the offerors, and data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Id. The RFP asked offerors to provide a list of at least one but not more than five of the most recent and relevant past and present contracts performed for the government or commercial customers within the last 3 years. Id. at 14. Each offeror was to provide for each contract, among other things, the contracting agency or company, the contract number and dollar value, the period of performance, the name, address and fax number of the contracting officer and the product or service supplied. Id. The Air Force received nine offers by the July 20, 1999 closing date. Proposals were ranked by price and, as called for by the solicitation, the technical proposals of the five low-priced offerors, including Champion's and SelRico's, were evaluated. Agency Report, Tab 9, Integrated Assessment Best Value Decision, at 2. After discussions, best and final offers (BAFO) were received; SelRico offered a total evaluated price of $4,892,540 for all base and option requirements, and Champion offered a price of $4,272,580. Id. The contracting officer sent survey questionnaires containing questions dealing with performance schedules, management, personnel, quality control and contractor cooperation to the sources provided by the offerors. Under the denominated questions, survey respondents were asked to circle numerical scores ranging from 1 to 6, representing ratings of "unsatisfactory," "marginal," "none," "satisfactory," "very good," and "exceptional," respectively. /1/ Agency Report, Tab 5, Past Performance Information for Champion Service Corporation, at 8-9. Each of these ratings was defined at the top of the questionnaire. /2/ Based on the survey responses, the proposals were assigned an overall rating of exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory. Champion provided five references; surveys were sent to four and responses were received from all four. /3/ Agency Report, Tab 9, Integrated Assessment Best Value Decision, at 2. Of the four responses, two involved strictly custodial service contracts which were not considered relevant. The other two surveys for food service were evaluated, resulting in a rating of "very good." Agency Report, Tab 5, Past Performance Information for Champion Service Corporation, at 9, 13. SelRico also provided five references; surveys were sent to all five and responses were received from three.