J. A. Jones Management Services, Inc.--Costs, B-284909.4, July 31, 2000

B-284909.4 Jul 31, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Identified alleged flaws in the past performance evaluation which the corrective action was designed to remedy. Which is used for demilitarization of certain chemical weapons. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of past performance. Were significantly more important than price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government. Jones's proposal was rated "very good" under the past performance factor and "low risk" under all the technical sub-factors. Raytheon's proposal was rated "exceptional" under the past performance factor and "low risk" under the technical sub-factors. While the protester's price was lower than Raytheon's price. View Decision Matter of: J. A. Jones Management Services, Inc.--Costs File: B-284909.4 Date: July 31, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION J. A. Jones Management Services, Inc. requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to Raytheon Technical Services Co. under solicitation No. F64605-99-R-0013, issued by the Department of the Air Force for base operating services at Johnston Atoll Air Force Base. We deny the request. The underlying solicitation, issued in July 1999, sought proposals to provide base operating support services for the Johnston Atoll base, which is used for demilitarization of certain chemical weapons. The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity, fixed-price contract with award fee, for a period of up to 7 years, including a 6-month base period and all options. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of past performance, technical, and price factors. The past performance and technical factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government. Four offerors, including J. A. Jones and Raytheon, submitted proposals. After evaluating the proposals and conducting discussions, the Air Force obtained best and final offers (BAFO) from all offerors. J. A. Jones's proposal was rated "very good" under the past performance factor and "low risk" under all the technical sub-factors. Raytheon's proposal was rated "exceptional" under the past performance factor and "low risk" under the technical sub-factors. While the protester's price was lower than Raytheon's price, the source selection authority (SSA) made a tradeoff determination that Raytheon's outstanding past performance outweighed the associated price premium. In its initial protest, filed March 14, 2000, J. A. Jones alleged only that the award decision lacked a rational basis for the determination that Raytheon's superior past performance warranted the payment of a significant price premium, since the Air Force had also concluded that there was little doubt that J. A. Jones could successfully perform. Protest at 2, 10, 12. In its April 7 agency report, the Air Force included the 18-page source selection decision, but did not include the offerors' proposals or their evaluations. The protester objected to this limited release of documents and requested the proposals and evaluations. At the request of our Office, the Air Force provided the past performance proposals and evaluations to J. A. Jones on April 12. After reviewing these documents, the protester filed a supplemental protest on April 17. The supplemental protest for the first time questioned the propriety of the past performance evaluation itself, alleging that it was conducted in an irrational and clearly unequal manner, thus calling into question the underlying basis for the award determination. Specifically, the protester alleged that the agency failed to relate Raytheon's evaluated strengths to the specific requirements of the contract and ignored Raytheon's identified weaknesses, and that the SSA had not been apprised of certain strengths associated with J. A. Jones's proposal. Upon review of the allegations raised in the supplemental protest, the Air Force took corrective action on May 4 by agreeing to re-evaluate the extant past performance information and to make a new best-value determination based on the re-evaluation. Because of this corrective action, our Office dismissed the initial and supplemental protests as academic. /1/ Thereupon, the protester filed this request that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. Pursuant to our Bid Protest Regulations, when an agency takes corrective action prior to our issuing a decision on the merits, we may recommend that the protester recover the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.8(e) (2000).