Albert Moving & Storage, B-290733; B-290733.2, September 23, 2002

Albert Moving & Storage, B-290733; B-290733.2, September 23, 2002 TITLE: Albert Moving & Storage, B-290733; B-290733.2, September 23, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290733; B-290733.2 DATE: September 23, 2002 ********************************************************************** Albert Moving & Storage, B-290733; B-290733.2, September 23, 2002 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Albert Moving & Storage File: B-290733; B-290733.2 Date: September 23, 2002 Kenneth S. Nankin, Esq., Nankin & Verma, and Brian W. Craver, Esq., Person & Craver, for the protester. Warren D. Leishman, Esq., and Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation defined a *satisfactory* past performance rating as permissibly encompassing minor problems which were satisfactorily corrected, agency reasonably rated awardee's past performance as *satisfactory,* based on the agency's consideration of various past performance information, including a past performance questionnaire, the awardee's response to certain performance problems, and other additional information submitted by the awardee. 2. Agency reasonably included awardee's proposal in the competitive range where contracting officer considered and documented various deficiencies that existed in awardee's initial proposal and concluded they were not significant enough to require proposal's elimination from the competitive range. DECISION Albert Moving & Storage protests the Department of the Air Force's contract awards to Ace Movers and Dwight Transfer & Storage under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41612-01-R-0119 to perform services related to shipment of personal property for Department of Defense personnel moving to or from Sheppard Air Force Base (SAFB), Texas. Albert protests that the agency misevaluated proposals with regard to past performance and that Dwight's proposal should not have been included in the competitive range. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued solicitation No. F41612-01-R-0119 on August 29, 2001, seeking fixed-price proposals to perform specified packing and moving services for a 1-year base period with four 1-year option periods. As amended, the RFP divided the required services into three parts: schedule I, which included tasks related to outbound shipments; schedule II, which included tasks related to inbound shipments; and schedule III, which included tasks associated with intra-area moves.[1] Offerors were required to submit technical proposals, past performance proposals, and price proposals. The solicitation provided that technical proposals would be evaluated for technical acceptability on a *pass/fail* basis, and that, for technically acceptable proposals, award determinations, by schedule and area, would be based on *best value* tradeoffs between past performance and price. With regard to past performance, offerors were required to identify prior customers for whom they had performed activities similar to those solicited here, and to provide those customers with a *past performance questionnaire* (which was included as part of the solicitation), and request that the customer complete the questionnaire and forward it to the specified SAFB contracting officer. The solicitation provided that offerors' past performance would be evaluated under an adjectival rating system using the terms *exceptional,* *very good,* *satisfactory,* *neutral/not applicable,* *marginal,* and *unsatisfactory.* Three companies -- Albert, Dwight, and Ace -- timely submitted proposals by the specified closing date. The agency performed a preliminary evaluation of proposals and concluded that all three should be included in the competitive range. Thereafter the agency conducted discussions with each of the offerors, and requested submission of final revised proposals. Upon receiving and evaluating the final proposals, the agency concluded that all three proposals were technically acceptable, that Albert's and Ace's proposal warranted *very good* past performance ratings, and that Dwight's proposal warranted a *satisfactory* past performance rating. Agency Report, Tab 2, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 3-4.