Wadsworth Builders, Inc., B-291633, January 24, 2003

B-291633 Jan 24, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of past performance evaluation is denied where record supports agency's rating of protester's past performance. Including its determination regarding which contracts were recent and relevant within the meaning of the solicitation. To the extent that one prior contract should have been considered relevant but was not. The protester was not prejudiced as a result. Given that the record shows no reasonable possibility that the agency would have rated protester's past performance more favorably had this contract been considered. Which was issued on August 8. We will examine an agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. View Decision Wadsworth Builders, Inc., B-291633, January 24, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Wadsworth Builders, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Falls Construction Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. F24604-02-R-0045, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the replacement of gas lines in Capehart Military Family Housing at Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB), Montana. The protester contends that the agency misevaluated both offerors' past performance. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was issued on August 8, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, price and past performance considered. The solicitation provided that in the award determination, the two factors would be of approximately equal weight. Four offerors submitted proposals prior to the September 9 closing date. After reviewing offerors' past performance information, the evaluators assigned the following ratings: Offeror Past Performance/ Performance Risk Rating Price Falls Exceptional/Hign Confidence $226,810 Wadsworth Satisfactory/Confidence $207,600 Offeror A Satisfactory/Confidence $310,623 Offeror B Very Good/Significant Confidence $324,195 The contracting officer determined that the difference between Falls' and Wadsworth's past performance ratings outweighed the difference of approximately 8 percent in their prices and that Falls' proposal therefore represented the best value to the government. On September 28, the agency awarded a contract to Falls. The protester objects to the agency's evaluation of both its own and Falls' past performance. Specifically, the protester contends that in evaluating Falls' past performance, the Air Force improperly considered a contract on which Falls had not yet completed performance. Wadsworth further argues that in evaluating its own past performance, the agency failed to consider recent, relevant contracts that it had performed and rated its performance under one contract less favorably than warranted. Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of offerors' past performance, we will examine an agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, since determining the relative merits of offerors' past performance information is primarily a matter within the contracting agency's discretion. Thomas Brand Siding Co., Inc., B-286914.3, Mar. 12, 2001, 2001 CPD Para. 53 at 4. The RFP provided that in evaluating offerors' past performance, the agency would consider contracts for similar work that were current or had been completed within the past 3 years. RFP Sec. L-505(b)(1)(c). The solicitation further provided that the agency would obtain past performance information from offerors' proposals, the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) (a centralized, automated database of performance evaluations on construction contractors), the Past Performance Retrieval System, documentation filed with the 341st Contracting Squadron (the contracting activity here), and data independently obtained from government and commercial sources. RFP Sec. M-2.b. In evaluating Falls' past performance, the contracting officer considered four contracts performed by Falls that she determined to be both recent and relevant. On two of the contracts, Falls received overall ratings of very good, while on the other two, it received ratings of outstanding/exceptional. All four projects involved underground utilities, and two of the four were gas line projects similar in scope and complexity to the project here. Acquisition Memorandum at 4. Wadsworth argues that the agency should not have considered one of the above contracts--a project identified on the evaluation worksheet for Falls as "Drainage Restoration at Missile Launch Facility," for which Falls received a rating of outstanding--because the performance evaluation questionnaire completed by the contract administrator for this project indicates that performance is not expected to be completed until October 31, 2003.