Green Valley Transportation, Inc., B-285283.2, April 16, 2001

B-285283.2 Apr 16, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated proposals with respect to past performance is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation is insufficient to show it was unreasonable. The GT program is a transportation management tool under which MTMC issues a request for rate tenders for all the traffic for particular routes for a specific period of time and awards what are. Traffic was to be awarded to one primary carrier for each lane. Awards were to be made to the firms whose proposals were most advantageous to the government. Past performance was more important than service. View Decision Matter of: Green Valley Transportation, Inc. File: B-285283.2 Date: April 16, 2001 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 improperly evaluated proposals with respect to past performance. We deny the protest. The GT program is a transportation management tool under which MTMC issues a request for rate tenders for all the traffic for particular routes for a specific period of time and 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. This solicitation concerns the movement of freight traffic from the Defense Distribution Depot in San Joaquin, California (DDJC) to various destinations within the United States. The procurement of these services has been the subject of prior protests. MTMC initially solicited for these requirements in 1999. In response to a post-award protest by another carrier, MTMC terminated all awards and resolicited for the requirements. The resolicitation anticipated the award of 56 contracts, one for each lane of traffic. Traffic was to be awarded to one primary carrier for each lane, 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. Awards were to be made to the firms whose proposals were most advantageous to the government, considering equally important price and technical factors. The RFP set forth two technical factors, past performance and service; past performance was more important than service. MTMC reserved the right to award on the basis of initial proposals, without conducting discussions. Offerors were to complete a rate tender for each lane in which they were interested. The price evaluation team input the 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. Since prices varied from lane to lane, the points awarded for price varied for each offeror from lane to lane. The past performance factor was comprised of two equally important subfactors, past percent on-time delivery and past performance "actions." The technical evaluation team (TET) was to consider an offeror's past performance activity in MTMC and other Department of Defense (DOD) movements over the last 24 months. All performance actions 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. /1/ The past performance subfactors were to be adjectivally rated as outstanding, excellent, good, fair, poor, or unsatisfactory, and the ratings converted into points. The ratings, and points, assigned to the past performance subfactors remained constant for each offeror from lane to lane. For each proposal, the technical subfactor points were totaled, and the total was weighted by assigning the maximum points to the offeror with the most technical points and prorating the points for the remaining offerors. The weighted technical ratio was added to the total price points to determine the total points for each offeror in each lane. The offeror with the most total points was ranked as the potential prime carrier, and alternate positions were identified for those offerors with the next highest totals. Awards were generally to be made on that basis. /2/ Green Valley was awarded contracts as the primary carrier on multiple lanes and as an alternate carrier on others.