DGR Associates, Inc., B-285428; B-285428.2, August 25, 2000

DGR Associates, Inc., B-285428; B-285428.2, August 25, 2000 TITLE: DGR Associates, Inc., B-285428; B-285428.2, August 25, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285428; B-285428.2 DATE: August 25, 2000 ********************************************************************** DGR Associates, Inc., B-285428; B-285428.2, August 25, 2000 Decision Matter of: DGR Associates, Inc. File: B-285428; B-285428.2 Date: August 25, 2000 Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., Moore Hennessy & Freeman, for the protester. Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Martin C. O'Brien, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's and awardee's competing proposals under certain technical evaluation factors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable; the protester's mere disagreement does not render the agency's judgment unreasonable. 2. Protester's contention that the evaluation of past performance was flawed because the awardee's performance history is not relevant to the solicited services is denied where the record shows that the solicitation anticipated reviewing a broader level of prior experience than the solicited services, and also shows that the assessment of the awardee's past performance was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation factor. DECISION DGR Associates, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Chugach Management Services, Inc. (CMSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04700-99-R-0043, issued by the Department of the Air Force for military family housing maintenance (MFHM) services at the Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California. DGR principally challenges the evaluation of its own proposal as well as the awardee's proposal. We deny the protests. The solicitation was issued as a competitive procurement set aside for small disadvantaged businesses under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) section 8(a) program, 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(a) (1994). RFP sect. A. The RFP contemplated award of a hybrid fixed-price/award-fee contract, with fixed-price requirements as well as cost-reimbursement line items for a base period with six 1-year options. RFP sect. B. As amended, the RFP required a contractor to provide all labor, materials, equipment, and supervision to perform the solicited services in accordance with the performance work statement (PWS). The services to be provided include maintenance management, 24-hour service calls, change of occupancy maintenance, equipment maintenance, cleaning of abandoned quarters, facility upgrade/maintenance, and grounds maintenance. RFP attach. 1. The RFP provided for award without discussions, on a best value basis, price and other factors considered. RFP amend. 6, sect. M.B.1.1. The evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance as: mission capability, price, past performance, and proposal risk. Id. sect. M.B.2.1. The RFP further advised that the non-price factors were of equal importance and, when combined, were significantly more important than price; however, price was a substantial factor in award. Id. sect. M.B.2.2. Under the RFP's evaluation scheme, mission capability was to be assigned color/adjectival ratings of blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable, and assessed for proposal risk using the ratings of low, moderate, and high. Id. sect.sect. M.B.7.1, M.B.7.3, M.B.6.0. Past performance was to be evaluated through the assignment of a confidence assessment rating based on an offeror's demonstrated performance which is current, recent, and relevant to the mission capability factor and price. [1] The evaluation would focus on the offeror's demonstrated performance record in effective contract and subcontract management, responsive scheduling, timeliness, workload fluctuations, customer satisfaction, quality, government interface, effective use of resources, and environmental and safety compliance. Id. sect.sect. M.B.5.1, M.B.7.4. The past performance evaluation also would include a performance assessment of subcontractors who would perform major or critical aspects of the solicited services; the RFP cautioned offerors that the agency also would consider information obtained from other sources. Id. sect.sect. M.B.5.3, L.II.5.1. Price proposals were to be evaluated for affordability and reasonableness based on the total price for the basic requirements and all options. Id. sect. M.B.4.1. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and requested that the offerors' proposals consist of three volumes. Volume 1 was to be organized to respond to the mission capability evaluation factor and was limited to 50 pages. Volume 2 was to include, among other things, a price proposal; there was no page limitation.