Chicataw Construction, Inc., B-289592; B-289592.2, March 20, 2002

Chicataw Construction, Inc., B-289592; B-289592.2, March 20, 2002 TITLE: Chicataw Construction, Inc., B-289592; B-289592.2, March 20, 2002 BNUMBER: B-289592; B-289592.2 DATE: March 20, 2002 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Chicataw Construction, Inc. File: B-289592; B-289592.2 Date: March 20, 2002 Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester. Joel David Malkin, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's challenge to the evaluation of its past performance is denied where the record shows that the agency made reasonable efforts to contact the required minimum of three past performance references, and ultimately used a neutral rating for the reference it was unable to reach. 2. Agency's post-protest recalculation of the protester's past performance score, and corresponding redetermination that the awardee's proposal still represents the best value to the government, will be considered where the reevaluation is limited in scope, primarily involves a straightforward recalculation with little room for subjective judgment, and there is nothing in the record to support a conclusion that the resulting increase in the protester's score would materially alter the agency's selection decision. DECISION Chicataw Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Hammond Corporation by the General Services Administration (GSA), pursuant to solicitation No. GS05P01GAC0174, issued to procure a chiller/cooling tower replacement for the Federal Building in Akron, Ohio. Chicataw argues that the agency's evaluation of past performance was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation here was issued on September 14, 2001, and anticipated award of a fixed-price contract for the demolition and removal of existing chiller and cooling tower equipment, and the furnishing and installation of new equipment. In addition, the solicitation identified two optional requirements related to replacing additional cooling equipment in the building. The total price for the base effort and the two options was defined as the "total evaluated price," and the solicitation advised that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government in terms of total evaluated price and past performance. Solicitation at 380, amend. 4, at 3. The solicitation also advised that past performance and total evaluated price were approximately equal in weight, but that as proposals became more equal in past performance, total evaluated price would become more important. Solicitation, amend. 3, at 3. With respect to past performance, the solicitation advised that only an offeror's experience as a prime contractor would be considered relevant, but that the experience of key personnel obtained from firms other than the offeror might also be considered, at the discretion of the contracting officer (CO). Solicitation at 380. With respect to the amount of past performance information to be provided, the solicitation included conflicting requirements. On page 380, the solicitation required offerors to provide a minimum of three references (but no more than six) for prior work completed no more than 5 years earlier (or for uncompleted work that was 90 percent completed by the time of proposal submission); on page 381, the solicitation required a minimum of six references, three for projects completed within the last 3 years and three for current projects. The solicitation also included a standard form for the submission of the requested past performance information. This form required identification of the project and its location, identification of a reference and contact information, as well the dollar value, the completion date, and a description of the work and complexity of the project. Id. at 383. With respect to offerors who might lack past performance information, the solicitation advised that failure of an offeror to provide a minimum of three relevant references (or the inability of the government to reach at least three references, after making a reasonable effort to do so), "may result in the offeror not being rated on the past performance factor." Id. at 381. [1] By the November 7 closing date set for the receipt of offers, GSA received proposals from four offerors, including Chicataw and Hammond. Chicataw's proposal identified five prior projects for its past performance evaluation, but did not use the solicitation's standard form for submitting such information; as a result, for certain of its past performance projects Chicataw did not provide all of the information sought by the agency for its evaluation.