Martin Electronics, Inc., B-290846.3; B-290846.4, December 23, 2002

Martin Electronics, Inc., B-290846.3; B-290846.4, December 23, 2002 TITLE: Martin Electronics, Inc., B-290846.3; B-290846.4, December 23, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290846.3; B-290846.4 DATE: December 23, 2002 ********************************************************************** Martin Electronics, Inc., B-290846.3; B-290846.4, December 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: Martin Electronics, Inc. File: B-290846.3; B-290846.4 Date: December 23, 2002 James J. McCullough, Esq., Louis D. Victorino, Esq., and Steven A. Alerding, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for the protester. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., Vera Meza, Esq., and Bradley J. Crosson, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 Protest is sustained where agency conducted exchanges with offerors in a manner that favored one over the other and where, in evaluating awardee's past performance, agency failed to include consideration of negative past performance information that occurred within the period defined by the solicitation as *recent* contract performance. DECISION Martin Electronics, Inc. (MEI) protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Pyrotechnic Specialties, Inc. (PSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAA09-01-R-0162 to provide M49A1 surface trip flares.[1] MEI protests, among other things, that the agency failed to properly evaluate the offerors' past performance information and failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on November 20, 2001, seeking fixed-price proposals for specified quantities of M49A1 surface trip flares.[2] The solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following three factors: manufacturing plan,[3] past performance,[4] and price. The solicitation further provided that manufacturing plan and past performance were of equal importance and that these factors, combined, were *significantly more important than price,* advising offerors that award would be made to the offeror *whose price, recent/relevant past performance and manufacturing plan provides the best value to the Government.* Agency Report, Tab A, RFP at 37, 40. With regard to past performance, offerors were required to identify *recent* and *relevant* contracts they had performed.[5] The solicitation specifically defined *recent* past performance as *occurring within the past three years to the date of the solicitation closing,* and *relevant* past performance as *having previously produced like or similar items.* RFP at 37. The solicitation advised offerors that adjectival ratings of *excellent,* *good,* *marginal* and *unacceptable* would be used to evaluate offerors under the manufacturing plan and past performance evaluation factors.[6] Agency Report, Tab A, RFP at 40. On or before the March 8, 2002 closing date, the agency received proposals from [deleted] offerors, including MEI and PSI. Thereafter, the agency conducted discussions, requested and received final proposal revisions, and evaluated the final revised proposals.