Eastern Colorado Builders, Inc., B-291332, December 19, 2002

B-291332 Dec 19, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's evaluation of present/past performance is unobjectionable where the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. The present/past performance evaluation was to include an assessment of relevance of offerors' prior contracts. Proposals were to be assigned an overall confidence assessment focusing on three key performance parameters. Were received by the June 10 closing time. Both firms' proposals were rated technically acceptable. Thus were also rated for present/past performance. While ECBI was rated only satisfactory/confidence. AEI's offered price was second low at $9. ECBI's was third low at $10. One of the other two proposals was rated technically acceptable and very good/significant confidence for present/past performance. View Decision Eastern Colorado Builders, Inc., B-291332, December 19, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Eastern Colorado Builders, Inc. (ECBI) protests the award of a contract to Active Endeavors, Inc. (AEI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA22550-02-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Air Force for flooring, furniture, and protective coating services at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado. ECBI challenges the agency's evaluation of its and AEI's present/past performance. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued May 1, 2002 as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year, with 4 option years. The solicitation sought proposals for three functional areas--design, procurement, and installation of all types of office furniture; storage, inventory, installation and repair of different types of flooring; and protective coating maintenance services. Section M of the RFP listed three evaluation factors--price, technical proposal and present/past performance--and provided for award based on a performance/price tradeoff among technically acceptable proposals, with present/past performance being significantly more important than price. The present/past performance evaluation was to include an assessment of relevance of offerors' prior contracts; in making this assessment, the agency could consider an offeror's contracts in the aggregate. Offerors' present/past performance could be very relevant (contract involved the magnitude of effort and complexities required under the RFP), relevant (less magnitude of effort and complexities, including most of what RFP required), semi-relevant (much less magnitude of effort and complexities, including some of what the RFP required), or not relevant. Additionally, as part of the present/past performance rating, proposals were to be assigned an overall confidence assessment focusing on three key performance parameters--quality of the service or product, contract compliance, and resource management. Four proposals, including AEI's and ECBI's, were received by the June 10 closing time. Both firms' proposals were rated technically acceptable, and thus were also rated for present/past performance. AEI received an exceptional/high confidence present/past performance rating, while ECBI was rated only satisfactory/confidence. AEI's offered price was second low at $9,558,756, and ECBI's was third low at $10,128,919. One of the other two proposals was rated technically acceptable and very good/significant confidence for present/past performance, and was the lowest'priced, at $9,417,739. The agency determined that AEI's higher present/past performance rating offset the low offeror's price advantage, and awarded the contract to AEI on September 5. Agency Report (AR), Tab 18, Proposal Evaluation Report, at 11-12, and Tab 34, Notice of Award, at 1. ECBI alleges that the agency misevaluated the relevance of its prior contracts and that, as a result, its present/past performance rating was too low. Specifically, the protester notes that it provided present/past performance questionnaires concerning a painting contract (relevant to protective coatings), a flooring tile contract (relevant to flooring), and a renovation contract (relevant to rehab/retrofit work). Protester's Comments at 3. The protester concedes that it lacked direct experience concerning the furniture portion of this contract, but notes that its proposed subcontractor had this type of experience. Id. at 4. The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the contracting agency's discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. KRA Corp., B-278904, B-278904.5, Apr. 2, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 147 at 7. Thus, in reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate proposals, but will examine the record to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations.