Beautify Professional Services Corporation, B-291954.3, October 6, 2003

B-291954.3 Oct 06, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of the award to a firm with a higher past performance rating and a higher price is sustained where the source selection authority ignored the protester's significantly lower price and. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on July 19. Was determined most advantageous to the government. These contracts were required to exceed an annual total (per contract) of $2.2 million. A sample of which was included in the RFP. The RFP defined a very good/significant confidence rating as "little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. " and the RFP defined an exceptional/high confidence rating as "essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.". View Decision Beautify Professional Services Corporation, B-291954.3, October 6, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Beautify Professional Services Corporation protests the award of a contract to Southway Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. F05611-02-R-0027, issued by the Department of the Air Force for custodial services for the academic area at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Beautify challenges the agency's decision to award a contract to an offeror submitting a higher-priced proposal. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on July 19, 2002, as a total small business set-aside, commercial item acquisition conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the base period and four 1-year option periods. The RFP, which included the clause at FAR Sec. 52.212-2, captioned "Evaluation--Commercial Items," stated that the agency would award a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the RFP, was determined most advantageous to the government, with past performance being of significantly greater importance than price. (The RFP did not include any technical evaluation factors.) With respect to past performance, the RFP required an offeror to provide reference information identifying similar contracts performed by the firm in its capacity as a prime contractor over the past 3 years; these contracts were required to exceed an annual total (per contract) of $2.2 million. Under the RFP, the agency would contact an offeror's references and request that these references complete a written past performance survey for the firm. This survey, a sample of which was included in the RFP, contained 21 questions focusing on specific aspects of the firm's past performance (e.g., abilities of the management team; staffing; quality control; and timeliness of contract performance); for each question, the reference could assign one of the following past performance/performance risk ratings: unsatisfactory/no confidence; marginal/little confidence; neutral/unknown confidence; satisfactory/confidence; very good/significant confidence; and exceptional/high confidence. As relevant here, the RFP defined a very good/significant confidence rating as "little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort," and the RFP defined an exceptional/high confidence rating as "essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort." RFP at 44. The final additional question--whether the reference would award another contract to the firm--required the reference to check either "yes" or "no" and to provide a narrative explanation of the reference's answer. Thirty-seven small business concerns, including Beautify and Southway (the incumbent contractor), submitted proposals by the initial closing time. Southway's proposal received an exceptional/high confidence past performance rating; Beautify's proposal received a very good/significant confidence rating. Southway's price ($12,962,825.00) was approximately 25 percent higher than Beautify's price ($10,353,610.00). Out of the 37 proposals received, Beautify's proposal contained the lowest price. In her source selection decision, the chief of infrastructure contracting (hereinafter referred to as the source selection authority) explained that "[b]ased on the nature of the requirement, the [Air Force] Academy does not consider custodial services to be a highly technical/complex effort and believes either category of past performance ('High Confidence' and 'Significant Confidence') poses a risk level which is awardable for these services." Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, Original Source Selection Decision, Jan. 27, 2003, at 3.