S3 LTD, B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3, September 10, 2001

S3 LTD, B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3, September 10, 2001 TITLE: S3 LTD, B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3, September 10, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3 DATE: September 10, 2001 ********************************************************************** S3 LTD, B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3, September 10, 2001 Decision Matter of: S3 LTD File: B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3 Date: September 10, 2001 Robert A. Klimek, Jr., Esq., Darrell Craft, Esq., and Nicholas H. Cobbs, Esq., Klimek, Kolodney & Casale, for the protester. Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., Michael L. Sterling, Esq., Walter T. Camp, Esq., and David W. Lannetti, Esq., Vandeventer Black, for Management Consulting, Inc., an intervenor. Barbara J. Amster, Esq., and Theresa A. Chesnut, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 that contracting agency improperly evaluated offerors' past performance are denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria; protester's disagreement with the agency's interpretation of the facts surrounding its past performance does not show that the agency's perception of that past performance was unreasonable. DECISION S3 LTD protests the award of a contract to Management Consulting, Inc. (MANCON) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00244-00-R-0028, issued by the Naval Supply Systems Command's Fleet and Industrial Supply Center-San Diego (FISC-SD) to obtain Regional Business Support (RBS) services. S3 contends that the Navy improperly evaluated proposals with respect to past performance. We deny the protests. The Navy issued the solicitation on March 16, 2000 to meet anticipated labor support needs of Department of Defense and other federal agency customers in the southwest region of the United States. These anticipated needs include support services in such varied categories as administrative and clerical, technical, information technology, specialized technology, financial, medical, industrial, and education and training. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time-and-materials-type contract under which federal customers could place task orders through FISC-SD for specific services. The contract was to be awarded based on initial proposals, without discussions, to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government. Proposals were to be evaluated under three factors, listed in descending order of importance: past performance, cost, and small business subcontracting. The Navy planned to evaluate the past performance of offerors and their proposed subcontractors as it related to the probability of successful accomplishment of the work. Each offeror was asked to submit a list of its government contracts and a detailed description of each contract received or in performance during the past 5 years that was in any way relevant to the required effort. Offerors were also asked to forward risk assessment questionnaires to respondents for their contracts, who were to send the completed questionnaires to the government point of contact for this solicitation. The Navy intended to evaluate the risks associated with an offeror's past performance under seven factors: relevance, quality, timeliness, cost control, business relations, customer satisfaction, and subcontracting plans (if applicable). [1] Relevance was the most important of these factors; the remaining factors were equally important. Each performance risk assessment was to consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken and the overall work record. RFP sect. M.1.D.1. The Navy received proposals from 15 offerors and the performance risk assessment group (PRAG) commenced its past performance evaluation. In addition to the information included in each proposal, the PRAG reviewed the completed questionnaires it received and conducted telephone interviews with respondents who failed to return questionnaires. After each PRAG member reviewed each response and arrived at overall adjectival ratings for each offeror, the PRAG met to develop consensus findings that are documented in its past performance report. The PRAG rated MANCON's proposal "outstanding" overall and ranked its past performance first among all offerors. An "outstanding" rating was to be assigned when "essentially no doubt existed" that the offeror would successfully perform the required effort. Source Selection Plan (SSP) at 25. The PRAG rated MANCON's proposal "outstanding" under each subfactor and identified various strengths and no weaknesses.