Kira, Inc.; All Star Maintenance, Inc., B-291507; B-291507.2, January 7, 2003

Kira, Inc.; All Star Maintenance, Inc., B-291507; B-291507.2, January 7, 2003 TITLE: Kira, Inc.; All Star Maintenance, Inc., B-291507; B-291507.2, January 7, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291507; B-291507.2 DATE: January 7, 2003 ********************************************************************** Kira, Inc.; All Star Maintenance, Inc., B-291507; B-291507.2, January 7, 2003 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: Kira, Inc.; All Star Maintenance, Inc. File: B-291507; B-291507.2 Date: January 7, 2003 Alan M. Grayson, Esq., and James A. McMillan, Esq., Grayson, Kubli & Hoffman, for Kira, Inc., and Mitchell W. Quick, Esq., Michael Best & Friedrich, for All Star Maintenance, Inc., the protesters. Timothy H. Power, Esq., for Dellew-PEMCO JV, an intervenor. John D. Inazu, Esq., and C. Gordon Jones, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where proposals were reasonably evaluated as technically equal in the area of past performance (the only technical evaluation factor), agency reasonably selected for award the proposal of the firm proposing the lowest price. DECISION Kira, Inc. and All Star Maintenance, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Dellew‑PEMCO JV, under request for proposals (RFP) No. F64605-02-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for maintenance services in support of over 2,200 military family housing units at the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Base, Hawaii. Kira and All Star challenge the evaluation of Dellew's past performance. We deny the protests. The RFP, issued on June 5, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best overall value to the government, considering past performance and price, which were approximately equal in importance. With respect to the past performance evaluation factor, the RFP stated that the agency would assess an offeror's past performance *as a prime [contractor] or subcontractor on requirements of similar scope and magnitude.* The RFP defined *scope and magnitude* in terms of the recency, currency, and relevance of a firm's past performance. RFP at 57-58. The RFP required an offeror to provide references for similar military family housing maintenance requirements performed either as a prime contractor or subcontractor, while reserving the right of the agency to limit the number of references actually reviewed and/or consulted. The RFP provided that the offeror's past performance would be evaluated in the areas of quality of service, schedule, business relations, and management of key personnel. An offeror's past performance could receive one of the following ratings: outstanding/high confidence, very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, marginal/little confidence, and unsatisfactory/no confidence. As relevant here, the RFP defined the outstanding/high confidence rating as *[b]ased on the offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.* RFP at 59. With respect to price, the RFP stated that an offeror's price would be evaluated for reasonableness. Id. Finally, the RFP advised that the agency intended to award the contract without conducting discussions. Six firms, including Kira, All Star (the incumbent contractor), and Dellew (as teamed with PEMCO), submitted proposals by the closing time on July 15. Dellew submitted references for military family housing maintenance contracts it had been awarded at Wright‑Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Ohio (2,600 military family housing units) and Langley AFB, Virginia (1,253 units). As relevant to these protests, the government's standard form contract documents (copies of which were included in Dellew's proposal) show that both of the referenced contracts had been awarded to *Dellew Corporation* as the prime contractor.