NMS Management, Inc., B-286335, November 24, 2000

B-286335 Nov 24, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The agency reasonably determined not to communicate with the protester or its team member regarding adverse past performance information reported by one of the team member's contract references since there was no inconsistency between the reference's narratives and the overall rating assigned for the team member's performance of the particular contract. The RFP provided that if technical differences between proposals were insignificant. Price differences were significant. She reported that MC's performance of custodial services was "marginal" in terms of quality ("[MC] has not met requirements under services for class `A'"). The MC reference also reported that the firm's performance of custodial services was "unacceptable" in terms of responsiveness in meeting schedules and time constraints ("lags in paperwork and new work assigned"). View Decision Matter of: NMS Management, Inc. File: B-286335 Date: November 24, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION NMS Management, Inc. protests the award of a fixed-price contract to Acepex Management Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68711-00-R-7604, issued by the Department of the Navy for custodial and janitorial services at various facilities in San Diego County, California. We deny the protest. The RFP provided that in determining the proposal most advantageous to the government, the technical evaluation factors (experience/past performance and management/administration plan), when combined, would be approximately equal in importance to price. In addition, the RFP provided that if technical differences between proposals were insignificant, but price differences were significant, then price would be the most important factor. The RFP also advised offerors that award could be made on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. RFP at 156-58. In its proposal, NMS stated that "[d]ue to the size of this contract, [it] ha[d] decided to team with another local . . . firm--MC Contracting." NMS Proposal at 1. NMS listed in its proposal three full service custodial contracts performed by it and three janitorial service contracts performed by MC. Id. at 1-3. The record shows that in evaluating the experience/past performance of NMS, the agency received and considered completed past performance questionnaires for five of the contracts listed in the NMS proposal. More specifically, the contract references provided the following ratings for NMS: "highly acceptable" on two contracts valued at approximately $[deleted] and $[deleted] per year, and "acceptable" on a contract valued at approximately $[deleted] per year. The contract references provided the following ratings for MC: "highly acceptable" on a contract valued at approximately $[deleted] per year, and "marginal" on a contract valued at approximately $[deleted] per year. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 5. (In contrast, Acepex received three "highly acceptable" ratings for contracts valued at approximately $[deleted], $[deleted], and $[deleted] per year, and one "acceptable" rating on a contract valued at approximately $[deleted] per year. Id.) As relevant here, with respect to the above-referenced "marginal" rating assigned to MC, the MC reference from the [deleted], supported her overall adjectival assessment with detailed narratives. For example, she reported that MC's performance of custodial services was "marginal" in terms of quality ("[MC] has not met requirements under services for class `A'"); timely performance of work ("paperwork not timely"); understanding of the contract terms and scope of work ("owner understands, but fails to train and monitor employees"); and responsiveness to technical direction and contract changes ("slow to contract changes"). The MC reference also reported that the firm's performance of custodial services was "unacceptable" in terms of responsiveness in meeting schedules and time constraints ("lags in paperwork and new work assigned"); effort to provide high quality services versus just meeting minimum requirements ("effort only meets minimum . . . preparing cure notice [for schedule of work]"); stability and quality of contractor's workforce ("[MC] let go on-site supervisor two months ago. Since then, services have been lousy. No control. [MC] depended too much on this person. Now [MC] can't handle contract services"). MC's reference reported that she would not award another contract to MC because the firm "[d]oes not manage employees well." Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, MC Past Performance Questionnaire from [deleted]. The record shows that Acepex's proposal received an overall "exceptional" technical rating, while the proposal of NMS received an overall "very good" technical rating. /1/ The NMS price was approximately 11 percent (i.e., almost $2 million) higher than Acepex's price. Acepex's proposal was ranked first, and the NMS proposal was ranked second.