SWR Inc., B-286044.2; B-286044.3, November 1, 2000

SWR Inc., B-286044.2; B-286044.3, November 1, 2000 TITLE: SWR Inc., B-286044.2; B-286044.3, November 1, 2000 BNUMBER: B-286044.2; B-286044.3 DATE: November 1, 2000 ********************************************************************** SWR Inc., B-286044.2; B-286044.3, November 1, 2000 Decision Matter of: SWR Inc. File: B-286044.2; B-286044.3 Date: November 1, 2000 Benjamin M. Bowden, Esq., Albrittons, Clifton, Alverson & Moody, for the protester. Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., and Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, for Pentad Corporation, an intervenor. Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Past performance evaluation is unobjectionable where it was conducted in accordance with stated evaluation criteria and is supported by the record; protester's proposal was reasonably rated neutral under past performance factor where it showed no relevant prior performance by offeror and, although protester argues that the relevant experience of its proposed project manager should have been attributed to the protester, agency reasonably declined to do so where the individual was not currently employed by the protester, and the proposal did not contain a firm commitment by the individual to work for the protester. DECISION SWR, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Pentad Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09607-00-R0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for mess attendant services at Moody AFB, Valdosta, Georgia. SWR challenges the evaluation of the proposals. We deny the protest. Under the statement of work, the contractor was to to provide all personnel, supervision, and any items and services necessary to perform food service attendant services. RFP attach. 2 at 3. The RFP, a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 5-month base period, with three 1-year options. RFP attach. 3 at 3. The RFP provided for a best value evaluation based on past performance and price, with past performance being significantly more important than price. RFP attach. 5 at 1. The past performance factor included the following subfactors: quality of service, management, and compliance with contract requirements. Id. at 3. Offerors were required to submit relevant past performance information, including a list of their last 5 contracts performed within the last 5 years, and all contracts currently in progress. RFP attach. 4 at 3. The RFP provided that past performance would be considered relevant "if the services provided are of a similar nature and scope as the requirements contained in this solicitation . . . . Past performance, for the purpose of satisfying this requirement, means quality and quantity and level of work essentially comparable to this acquisition." Id. Following the evaluation, proposals would be assigned a "Confidence Assessment Rating," based on an assessment of performance risk. RFP attach. 5 at 2. Offers having no relevant past performance would be given a neutral rating for past performance. Id. at 3. The RFP warned that, although price would be evaluated, the government might award to other than the low-priced offeror. Id. at 1. Several proposals were received and evaluated. Although all seven past performance references provided by SWR rated the firm exceptional or very good under each past performance subfactor, the agency found that the prior contracts were not similar in nature and scope to the RFP requirement, and therefore were not relevant; SWR's proposal thus was rated neutral overall for past performance. Agency Report (AR), sect. 10, at 2. Pentad's proposal referenced three current food service contracts at defense installations, all of which were deemed relevant. For two of the contracts, Pentad's performance was rated exceptional, and for the third it was rated very good; this resulted in an overall exceptional rating under the past performance factor. Id. at 4. Pentad's price, $1,829,979.81, was the lowest among four proposals rated exceptional; SWR's proposal was one of five rated neutral, and was the lowest-priced overall at $1,644,542.80. Id. at 7, 8. The source selection authority (SSA) compared Pentad's proposal to the one proposal rated satisfactory (which was the second lowest-priced overall at $1,649,817.90), and determined the premium was reasonable given the superior quality reflected in Pentad's exceptional past performance rating. Thus, Pentad's offer was determined to represent the best value to the government, and award was made to that firm. Id. at 8, 9. Following a debriefing, SWR filed this protest. AR, Memorandum of Law, at 1. SWR objects to its neutral past performance rating.