Ti Hu, Inc., B-284360, March 31, 2000

B-284360 Mar 31, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably determined that experience on full food service contracts was less relevant for purposes of evaluating past performance than experience on mess attendant services. Which were the services being procured. 2. New and independent protest contentions are untimely. Where the contentions are based on the agency report but were raised more than 10 calendar days after receipt of the report. The protester contends that the past performance evaluation was unreasonable. The RFP stated that "greater consideration [would be given] to the contracts which the [agency] feels are more relevant to the RFP [work].". The possible past performance ratings were exceptional. Initial proposals were received from seven offerors. View Decision Matter of: Ti Hu, Inc. File: B-284360 Date: March 31, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ti Hu, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Acorn Food Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-99-R-3749, issued by the Department of the Navy for mess attendant services at Submarine Base Groton. The protester contends that the past performance evaluation was unreasonable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. The RFP provided for award on a best value basis, considering past performance and price, with past performance being more important than price. In evaluating past performance, the RFP stated that "greater consideration [would be given] to the contracts which the [agency] feels are more relevant to the RFP [work]." RFP Sec. M(2). The possible past performance ratings were exceptional, satisfactory, and unacceptable. Agency Report, Tab 17, Contract Review Board Presentation, at 6. Initial proposals were received from seven offerors, including Ti Hu and Acorn Food Services, Inc. The agency requested and received clarification from Ti Hu regarding its relationship with its subcontractor. Agency Report, Tab 8, Letter from Contracting Officer to Ti Hu (Oct. 15, 1999), and Tab 9, Letter from Ti Hu to Contracting Officer (Oct. 18, 1999). No discussions were held with any offeror. In evaluating Ti Hu's past performance, the agency contacted the identified points of contact (POC) for two of the three Ti Hu contracts that appeared most relevant to the statement of work. The POCs indicated that Ti Hu deserved an exceptional rating for its full food service work, but only a satisfactory rating for its mess attendant work, which was considered by the agency to be more relevant to the instant RFP's requirements than the full food service work. Ti Hu's past performance proposal identified six contracts for its subcontractor, of which only one contract was for mess attendant services. In evaluating the past performance of Ti Hu's subcontractor, the agency contacted the POC for the mess attendant service contract, which gave the subcontractor a satisfactory rating, and a POC for one of the full food service contracts, which gave the subcontractor an exceptional rating. While considered satisfactory overall, Ti Hu's past performance was ranked sixth out of the seven proposals received. Agency Report at 5-8. Acorn's past performance was found exceptional. Four of the five contracts identified in Acorn's past performance proposal were for full food services. Acorn's most relevant contract was the incumbent mess attendant service contract at Submarine Base Groton, for which the POC rated Acorn's performance exceptional. The agency contacted POCs for three of the four full food service contracts, for which Acorn received one exceptional and two satisfactory ratings, with positive comments about Acorn's corporate responsiveness and cleanliness. Acorn's past performance was rated first overall of the proposals received. Id. at 8-11. The agency determined that the minimal price savings in Ti Hu's proposal were more than offset by the substantial differences in Ti Hu's and Acorn's past performance, particularly considering Acorn's exceptional performance as the incumbent contractor, and that Acorn's proposal therefore represented the best value to the government. Id. at 11-13. Award was made to Acorn on December 22. Id. at 13. Ti Hu filed an agency-level protest, which was denied the same day. Agency Report, Tab 23, Agency-Level Protest (Dec. 28, 1999), and Tab 24, Denial of Agency-Level Protest (Dec. 28, 1999). This protest to our Office followed. The protester argues in its initial protest, filed December 29, 1999, that the agency erred in evaluating the past performance of Ti Hu and its subcontractor because it gave less weight to the full food service contracts than to the mess attendant service contracts.