Ready Transportation, Inc., B-285283.3; B-285283.4, May 8, 2001

Ready Transportation, Inc., B-285283.3; B-285283.4, May 8, 2001 TITLE: Ready Transportation, Inc., B-285283.3; B-285283.4, May 8, 2001 BNUMBER: B-285283.3; B-285283.4 DATE: May 8, 2001 ********************************************************************** Ready Transportation, Inc., B-285283.3; B-285283.4, May 8, 2001 Decision Matter of: Ready Transportation, Inc. File: B-285283.3; B-285283.4 Date: May 8, 2001 Timothy C. Riley, Esq., Riley & Riley, for the protester. Raighne C. Delaney, Esq., and Leo S. Fisher, Esq., Bean Kinney & Korman, for Green Valley Transportation, Inc., an intervenor. Capt. Ryan M. Zipf and Col. Michael R. Neds, Department of the Army, for the agency. Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. 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 evaluation criteria; mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation is insufficient to show it was unreasonable. 2. Protest that contracting agency implemented solicitation's evaluation scheme in a mechanical manner that resulted in an irrational source selection decision is denied where the record shows the allegation is without basis. DECISION Ready Transportation, Inc. protests an award 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. Ready argues that the agency improperly evaluated proposals with respect to past performance and implemented the evaluation scheme in a mechanical manner that resulted in an irrational source selection decision. We deny the protests. 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. [1] 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. After awards were made to numerous shippers, Ready protested various aspects of the procurement. MTMC took corrective action by terminating all of the awards and resoliciting for the requirements; Ready's protest was dismissed as academic. The resolicitation, issued January 25, 2000, 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. [2] RFP encl. 5, at 30. Offerors were to complete a rate tender for each lane in which they were interested. The price evaluation team entered 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 available, 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." Past performance "actions" were essentially problems that had arisen during performance of prior contracts. 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. [3] The past performance subfactors were to be adjectivally rated as outstanding, excellent, good, fair, poor, or unsatisfactory. The service factor was comprised of four subfactors, including the equally important cargo liability amount, proposed on-time delivery percentage, and percentage refund subfactors.