OSI Collection Services, Inc.; C.B. Accounts, Inc., B-286597.3; B-286597.4; B-286597.5; B-286597.6, June 12, 2001

OSI Collection Services, Inc.; C.B. Accounts, Inc., B-286597.3; B-286597.4; B-286597.5; B-286597.6, June 12, 2001 TITLE: OSI Collection Services, Inc.; C.B. Accounts, Inc., B-286597.3; B-286597.4; B-286597.5; B-286597.6, June 12, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286597.3; B-286597.4; B-286597.5; B-286597.6 DATE: June 12, 2001 ********************************************************************** OSI Collection Services, Inc.; C.B. Accounts, Inc., B-286597.3; B-286597.4; B-286597.5; B-286597.6, June 12, 2001 Decision Matter of: OSI Collection Services, Inc.; C.B. Accounts, Inc. File: B-286597.3; B-286597.4; B-286597.5; B-286597.6 Date: June 12, 2001 Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., and Karen D. Powell, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, for OSI Collection Services, Inc., and Robert A. Mangrum, Esq., Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., and Paul S. Ebert, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for C.B. Accounts, Inc., the protesters. Deneen J. Melander, Esq., and Catherine E. Pollack, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc.; Brian A. Darst, Esq., and Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins, for Maximus, Inc.; and Saul L. Moskowitz, Esq., Dean Blakey & Moskowitz, for Diversified Collection Services, Inc., intervenors. Jeffrey C. Morhardt, Esq., and Jose Otero, Esq., Department of Education, 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 Protests against award of federal supply schedule task order contracts for private collection agency services--following a reevaluation of offerors' past performance pursuant to prior protests and a new source selection decision--are denied where the record shows that the contracting agency's reevaluation of offerors' past performance was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria, and fully supported. DECISION OSI Collection Services, Inc. and C.B. Accounts, Inc. (CBA) protest the decision by the Department of Education to award federal supply schedule (FSS) task order contracts to 11 other firms under a request for task order proposal (RFTOP) for private collection agency (PCA) services. Both protesters contend that the agency improperly evaluated offerors' proposals with respect to past performance. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The agency's Office of Student Financial Assistance performs collection and administrative resolution activities on debts resulting from the nonpayment of student loans and the failure to fulfill grant requirements. When this solicitation was issued, 17 PCA contractors, including OSI and CBA, were performing these services for the agency. This follow-on RFTOP was issued in July 2000 to obtain the services of PCAs with contracts under the General Services Administration's Financial Asset Management Services Schedule. Task order contracts were to be issued to 10-12 FSS contractors, with at least two awarded under a small business set-aside. The agency estimates that, on average, each non-set-aside task order contract will generate approximately $25 million in commissions during its term. The agency planned to conduct an initial transfer of 20,000 accounts to each successful contractor, each of whom was to locate and contact the borrowers to demand payment of their debts or to otherwise resolve the account through such measures as wage garnishment, litigation, or other administrative resolutions. Additional account transfers were to occur throughout the life of the contract. Incumbent contractors were invited to compete for the contracts if they had performed "consistently well" for the agency based upon its Competitive Performance and Continuous Surveillance (CPCS) evaluation. The CPCS evaluation, performed every 4 months, measures the relative performance of each contractor on all accounts transferred under various performance indicators and is used to determine bonus payments and the transfer of new accounts. Under the CPCS methodology, the contractor ranked the highest under a particular performance indicator receives the maximum number of points available for that indicator, and the remaining contractors receive points in proportion to their ranking relative to the leading contractor. Each contractor's overall CPCS score for each 4-month period is the sum of its scores for all of the performance indicators for that period. Offerors were required to propose a commission or fee for each type of service to be performed under the contract. Since the RFTOP established target rates for these commissions or fees, "quality factors" and the commitment to small business were to be more important than price in making the award selection decision.