Green Valley Transportation, Inc., B-285283, August 9, 2000

B-285283 Aug 09, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracting agency's evaluation of offerors' past performance was unreasonable where (1) with respect to reports of past performance problems. Green Valley argues that the agency's evaluation of technical proposals with respect to past performance was unreasonable. MTMC awards what are. The cargo is allocated into 56 "lanes. Traffic was to be awarded to one primary carrier for each lane of traffic. Awards were to be made to the firms whose proposals were most advantageous to the government. Past performance was more important than service. Are the only aspects of the evaluation at issue here. /2/ Past performance "actions" were essentially problems that had arisen during performance. Range from letters of concern and letters of warning to letters of withdrawal and letters of removal. /3/ The RFP advised potential offerors that the technical evaluation team (TET) was to consider an offeror's past performance activity in MTMC's Optimum Benefit Negotiations. View Decision Matter of: Green Valley Transportation, Inc. File: B-285283 Date: August 9, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Green Valley Transportation, Inc. protests awards made under request for proposals (RFP) No. JD-5252-SH, issued by the Department of the Army, Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), for guaranteed traffic (GT) freight transportation. Green Valley argues that the agency's evaluation of technical proposals with respect to past performance was unreasonable. We sustain the protest. The solicitation, issued January 25, 2000, sought to allocate cargo traffic lanes from the Defense Distribution Depot in San Joaquin, California (DDJC) to various points throughout the continental United States pursuant to the GT program. /1/ Under this program, MTMC issues a request for rate tenders for all the traffic for particular routes for a specific period of time. MTMC awards what are, in effect, requirements contracts to the successful carriers. Allstates Air Cargo, Inc., B-261266, B-261266.2, Feb. 29, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 138 at 2 n.3. Here, the cargo is allocated into 56 "lanes," each representing a combination of different equipment types, extent of equipment use, and destinations. The RFP anticipated the award of 56 contracts, one for each lane, to be performed between April 29, 2000 and April 28, 2001. RFP Cover Letter at 1. Traffic was to be awarded to one primary carrier for each lane of traffic, with the possibility that alternate carrier selections might be made for each lane. Each offeror could be selected as a primary carrier or as an alternate for multiple lanes. RFP encl. 5, at 30. Awards were to be made to the firms whose proposals were most advantageous to the government, considering equally important price and technical factors. The solicitation set forth two technical evaluation factors, past performance and service; past performance was more important than service. RFP encl. 5, at 27-28. The past performance factor's two equally important subfactors--past performance "actions" and past percent on-time delivery--are the only aspects of the evaluation at issue here. /2/ Past performance "actions" were essentially problems that had arisen during performance, and range from letters of concern and letters of warning to letters of withdrawal and letters of removal. /3/ The RFP advised potential offerors that the technical evaluation team (TET) was to consider an offeror's past performance activity in MTMC's Optimum Benefit Negotiations, GT programs, and other Department of Defense (DOD) movements over the last 24 months. All performance actions, including loss and damage data and on-time delivery reports, were to be considered for the term of the current GT contracts, to include extensions. If the current GT contracts were shorter than 12 months, performance actions on the prior contracts were to be considered. /4/ The agency reserved the right to obtain and use other data pertaining to offerors' past performance in evaluating proposals. Id. at 28. The agency received proposals from 36 carriers and conducted its evaluation. The price evaluation team input the offerors' rates into MTMC's automated system and arrived at total prices for each offeror for each lane. For each lane, the low-price offeror received the maximum number of price points, and all other offerors received prorated points. Traffic Manager's Statement of Facts Para. 5. Since prices varied from lane to lane, the points awarded for price varied for each offeror from lane to lane. Agency Memorandum of Law at 12 n.40. In a similar fashion, the TET input such service subfactors as the offerors' proposed transit times and on-time delivery and refund percentages into MTMC's system and assigned points on a predetermined basis. Traffic Manager's Statement of Facts Paras. 7-8. The evaluation of past performance required a more subjective evaluation.