Thomas Brand Siding Company, Inc., B-286914.3, March 12, 2001

B-286914.3 Mar 12, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which was issued on September 15. Offerors were instructed to identify not more than five recent. Offerors were to furnish copies of a past performance questionnaire to the agencies/firms responsible for the administration of these projects. The RFP advised offerors that they were responsible for ensuring that their references received. " and provided that "[c]urrent and relevant performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or non-relevant performance.". The contracting officer for a contract that it was performing at Fort Benning. Which offerors were to furnish to their references. Determined that Brand's overall past performance rating should remain as neutral/unknown confidence because even after the Fort Benning questionnaire was taken into account. View Decision Matter of: Thomas Brand Siding Company, Inc. File: B-286914.3 Date: March 12, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Thomas Brand Siding Company, Inc. protests the evaluation of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. F25600-00-R0145, issued by the Department of the Air Force for military family housing maintenance services at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Specifically, the protester objects to the agency's rating of its past performance as neutral/unknown confidence. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was issued on September 15, 2000, contemplated the award of a requirements contract for a base period of 10 months and four option periods of 1 year each. Services to be performed include quarters cleaning, painting, refinishing of hardwood floors, refinishing and replacement of bathroom fixtures, replacement of outlets, and appliance replacement. The solicitation provided that two factors, past performance and price, would be considered in the evalution of proposals, with past performance of significantly greater importance than price. To facilitate evaluation of their past performance, offerors were instructed to identify not more than five recent, simultaneously-managed, multi-discipline service projects of varying complexity, each exceeding $500,000. RFP amend. 2, at 2. Offerors were to furnish copies of a past performance questionnaire to the agencies/firms responsible for the administration of these projects. The RFP advised offerors that they were responsible for ensuring that their references received, completed, and returned the questionnaires to the issuing office on time. Id. at 3. The RFP further advised that "[t]ypically, less than 3 submitted questionnaires could be regarded as inadequate to properly evaluate an offeror's past performance." Id. Elsewhere, the RFP defined relevant experience for purposes of the solicitation as "similar end items (i.e., Family Housing maintenance on at least 1,000 units, multiple projects concurrently accomplished, and efforts with similar services)," and provided that "[c]urrent and relevant performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or non-relevant performance." Id. at 5. [Deleted] offerors submitted proposals by the October 23 closing date. Upon initial evaluation, the agency evaluators assigned Brand a past performance rating of neutral/unknown confidence because past performance questionnaires had been received from only two of its references. Because Brand had submitted the lowest-priced proposal, the agency contacted it regarding its neutral rating, informing the protester that questionnaires had been received from Maxwell and Shaw Air Force Bases (AFB) only. The protester responded by contacting a third reference to whom it had furnished a past performance questionnaire, the contracting officer for a contract that it was performing at Fort Benning, Georgia, to find out why a completed questionnaire had not been submitted. The Fort Benning contracting officer responded by furnishing a copy of a past performance questionnaire to the evaluators. Upon receipt of the questionnaire from Fort Benning, agency officials informed Brand that they would not consider it because the reference had completed the wrong form. (Amendment 2 to the RFP, issued on October 10, included a revised past performance questionnaire, which offerors were to furnish to their references; Brand's Fort Benning reference instead submitted a copy of the past performance questionnaire that had been included in the original RFP.) On November 7, the reference furnished a copy of the correct questionnaire to the contracting office, but the evaluation board again refused to consider it. On November 10, the protester filed an agency-level protest requesting acceptance of the corrected questionnaire. The agency denied the protest, and on December 1, Brand filed a protest with our Office.