J. A. Jones Management Services, Inc., B-284909.5, October 2, 2000

B-284909.5 Oct 02, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly evaluated offerors' past performance is denied where record reflects that the evaluation ratings are reasonable and were arrived at under an assessment conducted in accordance with the criteria set forth in the solicitation. 2. Higher-priced proposal is unobjectionable where solicitation provided for best-value award with technical and past performance considerations significantly more important than price. Offerors were further instructed to include in their description of relevant contracts specific detail regarding "why or how that effort is relevant and similar in scope and magnitude to the effort required by this solicitation.". Jones's proposal was rated "very good" (the second-highest adjectival rating available). View Decision Matter of: J. A. Jones Management Services, Inc. File: B-284909.5 Date: October 2, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION J. A. Jones Management Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Raytheon Technical Services Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. F64605-99-R-0013 for base operating support services at Johnston Atoll. Jones questions the propriety of the agency's past performance evaluations and asserts that the resulting award decision lacks a rational basis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued in July 1999, contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity contract to provide base operating services, including the disposal of munitions and chemical agents, for a period of up to 7 years, including a 6-month base period and all options, at Johnston Atoll Air Force Base, a remote location in the Pacific Ocean. The solicitation advised offerors that a single contract would be awarded on the basis of the best overall value to the government, and listed the following evaluation areas in descending order of importance: past performance, technical, and price. The RFP further stated that past performance and technical, combined, would be significantly more important than price, so that the lowest-priced proposal would not necessarily receive the award. As relevant here, at section L the RFP instructed offerors to provide their experience performing on similar base operating support service contracts by listing no more than 25 contracts that the firm had performed since 1994, and to rank these contracts in order of their relevance to this solicitation's performance work statement. Offerors were further instructed to include in their description of relevant contracts specific detail regarding "why or how that effort is relevant and similar in scope and magnitude to the effort required by this solicitation." RFP Sec. L.(2).(I).(c). Section M of the RFP specified that in assessing offerors' past performance, the agency would "focus[] on the currency and relevancy (i.e., scope and magnitude)." RFP Sec. M.(I).(1). Four firms submitted proposals. After reviewing the initial proposals, the Air Force conducted oral and written discussions and invited offerors to submit revised proposals. All four final proposals received a rating of acceptable with low risk in the technical evaluation area. Under the past performance factor, Jones's proposal was rated "very good" (the second-highest adjectival rating available), while Raytheon's proposal was rated "exceptional," the highest available rating. Jones's overall price of $[deleted] was the second-lowest among the four offers, while Raytheon's $160,630,151 was third lowest. /1/ Agency Report (Apr. 6, 2000) [Agency Report I], Tab 7, Source Selection Decision (Mar. 3, 2000), at 14. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) concluded that Raytheon's exceptional/high confidence past performance rating reflected a record of substantial current and past experience providing base operating services with an exceptional level of performance, and that the benefit of this experience far outweighed the relatively small difference in price compared to any of the other offerors. The SSA therefore selected Raytheon for the award. On March 14, 2000, Jones filed a protest with our Office (B-284909.2), challenging the Air Force's best value determination and the resulting award decision; after reviewing the agency report, Jones supplemented its protest on April 17 and April 20, alleging improprieties in the agency's evaluation of Jones's past performance. During the development of the supplemental protest, the Air Force decided to take corrective action by empanelling a new performance risk assessment group (PRAG) to conduct a new past performance evaluation and to make a new best value determination. Thereupon, we dismissed Jones's protest as academic because the agency had taken corrective action. CURRENT PROTEST The new PRAG reviewed each offeror's past performance proposal volume, the evaluation notices and responses, and the completed past performance questionnaires.