CWIS, LLC, B-287521, July 2, 2001

B-287521 Jul 02, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance was reasonable where protester does not dispute that certain aspects of its performance on a previous contract were deficient and the agency reasonably considered the corrective measures taken by the protester to rectify the deficient performance. 2. Agency's cost realism evaluation of protester's proposal that resulted in an upwards adjustment of proposed costs for airfare was reasonable where agency accounted for considerations relevant to performance of contract. Such as travel being required on short notice and to cities that are not served by the airline on which protester's proposed fares were based. Were unreasonable. The contractor will be required. View Decision In Matter of CWIS, LLC, B-287521, July 2, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION We deny the protest. The RFP, restricted to firms certified under the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) program, provided for an award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the required services for a base period of 2 years with two 1-year options. The contractor will be required, for example, to travel to numerous state administrative agencies and provide training to the participants. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined most advantageous to the government, and listed the following evaluation factors and their relative values: 1. Technical Approach (40 points) 1. Organizational Qualifications, Experience (30 points) 2. Past Performance (20 points) 3. Personnel Qualifications and Experience (10 points) The RFP stated that the combined relative merit of these evaluation factors would be considered more significant than cost/price, and advised offerors that each offeror's proposal would be analyzed for cost realism. The solicitation included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and advised offerors that the agency intended to establish a competitive range, conduct discussions with those offerors whose proposals were included in the competitive range, and seek revised proposals. The agency received proposals from three offerors, and all were included in the competitive range. Agency Report, Tab E, Initial Technical Evaluation Report, at 9. Discussions were conducted, and final proposal revisions requested. ISSI's proposal received a technical score of 88 out of 100 points, at a proposed and evaluated cost of $5,601,086, and CWIS's proposal received a score of 81 points at a proposed cost of $4,592,073 and an evaluated cost of $5,544,711. Agency Report, Tab K, Technical Evaluation Panel Memorandum to the Source Selection Official, at 14. The agency determined that ISSI's proposal represented the best value to the agency, as compared to the other proposals received, because ISSI's proposal's higher technical point score reflected strengths, particularly with regard to past performance, that provided added value to the government, justifying award based on its slightly higher evaluated probable cost, and made award to that firm. Id. at 19-21. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of CWIS's proposal under the past performance evaluation factor was unreasonable. Our Office will examine an agency's evaluation of an offeror's past performance only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations, since determining the relative merit of an offeror's past performance is primarily a matter within the contracting agency's discretion. TRW, Inc., B-282162, B-282162.2, June 9, 1999, 99-2 CPD Para. 12 at 3. In evaluating CWIS's proposal and checking its references, the technical evaluation panel (TEP) was informed that although CWIS had performed adequately or better on a number of contracts, its performance on one contract was poor. Agency Report, Tab E, Initial Technical Evaluation Report, at 8. The TEP thus downgraded CWIS's proposal under the past performance factor, and decided that "since references were mixed, the TEP [would] seek clarification from the offeror" regarding its past performance. Id. Specifically, CWIS was asked to provide additional information regarding the contract under which its performance was rated poor, as well as another contract that had been performed by CWIS's proposed subcontractor and for which CWIS had described certain "[p]roblems [e]ncountered" during that contract's performance. Agency Report, Tab D, CWIS Proposal, at 4-4; Tab F, CWIS's Response to the Technical and Cost Discussion Questions, Paras. 7, 8. The protester responded to the agency's inquiries regarding the contract under which its performance had been characterized as poor by detailing certain problems that surfaced "[d]uring a routine quality check." Agency Report, Tab F, CWIS's Response to the Technical and Cost Discussion Questions Para. 7.