Birdwell Brothers Painting & Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 2000

B-285035 Jul 05, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Evaluation of "customer satisfaction" was reasonable where it considered specific examples of protester's past performance problems noted by government inspectors. Notwithstanding that the protester was only a subcontractor in those examples. 2. Birdwell contends that the agency's evaluation and selection decision were unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation. The RFP stated that each offeror would have an opportunity to respond to any derogatory or adverse past performance information. Birdwell responded that the prime contractor involved was a competitor with Birdwell and that its information should be disregarded. He noted that the contracts (and subcontracts) previously performed were not of the scope or magnitude of the contemplated effort at Beale AFB. View Decision Matter of: Birdwell Brothers Painting & Refinishing File: B-285035 Date: July 5, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Birdwell Brothers Painting & Refinishing protests the award of a contract to Red River Services Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04666-99-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for housing maintenance services. Birdwell contends that the agency's evaluation and selection decision were unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation. We deny the protest. On June 14, the agency issued this solicitation for maintenance of 1,394 military family housing units at Beale Air Force Base (AFB) in California pursuant to the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 for a 9-month fixed-price requirements contract, with six 1-year option periods, with an award fee provision. RFP at 1, 30, 35. The statement of work (SOW) included change of occupancy maintenance (preparing a house for new occupants, including painting, purchase and installation of appliances, lead and asbestos abatement, and pest control), service calls (plumbing and lockouts), preventive maintenance (interior, exterior, playgrounds, fireplaces and chimneys, drains, and gutters), environmental protection (hazardous waste management, solid waste removal, and recycling), major response work (sidewalks and special projects), as well as stocking and operating a store for minor self-help repairs. RFP attach. 1, at 4, 17-18, 20, 23-24. The RFP provided for selection of a contractor based on a tradeoff between past performance and price. RFP amend. 1, at 43. Past performance would be "significantly more important" than price. RFP amend. 1, at 44. In evaluating past performance, the agency would assign a confidence assessment rating based on an assessment of performance risk and assign adjectival ratings of "exceptional," "very good," "satisfactory," "neutral," "marginal," or "unacceptable." /1/ RFP amend. 1, at 43-44. The agency would perform this assessment and evaluate past performance on the basis of seven subfactors, as follows: (a) Contractor Responsiveness (b) Quality of Service and Workmanship (c) Customer Satisfaction (d) Contract Management (e) Compliance with sub-contracting goals (f) Compliance with environmental laws/safety and security (g) Contractual Obligations Id. at 44. The solicitation contained a past performance questionnaire, for mailing to prospective references. The agency reserved the right to look into all or a portion of the offeror's references and collect data either through the questionnaire or by telephone from the listed references or from other sources. RFP at 44. The RFP stated that each offeror would have an opportunity to respond to any derogatory or adverse past performance information, defined as "any information obtained that falls below a satisfactory/confidence performance rating." The final determination of the offeror's rating would rest with the contracting officer. Id. at 44. The agency received 18 proposals by September 28, the date for submission of offers. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. In its proposal, the protester advised the agency that it had supplied references for two subcontracts with potential competitors on the Beale AFB and other procurements, who, the protester suggested, "could be prejudiced" against Birdwell. Birdwell Past Performance Information, July 7, 1999, at 3. Birdwell "strongly urge[d]" the agency to obtain its past performance information for those subcontracts from "government contracting authority," not from the prime contractors. Id. The agency referred proposals to a source selection team (SST) consisting of two members of its housing staff and one representative from its contracting office. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The SST conducted its evaluation of past performance by analyzing responses to the questionnaires in terms of the seven subfactors listed in the RFP. Proposal Evaluation Report at 3-6.