CMC & Maintenance, Inc., B-292081, May 19, 2003

B-292081 May 19, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's assignment of neutral rating for past performance to the protester was reasonable where the protester's referenced past performance was either of far less magnitude than. Agency is not required to refer a neutral past performance evaluation to the Small Business Administration for a possible certificate of competency. Argues that it was found nonresponsible without referral to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a possible certificate of competency (COC). Which were said to be approximately equal in weight. The possible past performance ratings were exceptional/high confidence. Offerors were to explain "how that effort is relevant and similar in scope and magnitude to the effort required by this solicitation.". View Decision CMC & Maintenance, Inc., B-292081, May 19, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION CMC & Maintenance, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Navales Enterprises, Inc. under request for proposals No. F64605-02-R-0026, issued by the Department of the Air Force for custodial services at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii. CMC challenges the agency's past performance evaluation and selection of a higher priced proposal, and argues that it was found nonresponsible without referral to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a possible certificate of competency (COC). We deny the protest. The RFP, issued June 7, 2002 as a competitive Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) set-aside, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for 1 base year with four 1-year options. The solicitation provided for a "best value source selection," based on a comparison of past performance and price/cost, which were said to be approximately equal in weight. RFP at 143. The possible past performance ratings were exceptional/high confidence, very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, marginal/little confidence, and unsatisfactory/no confidence. RFP at 145. The RFP provided that past performance would be evaluated for "currency and relevancy (i.e., scope and magnitude)," and for each contract identified, offerors were to explain "how that effort is relevant and similar in scope and magnitude to the effort required by this solicitation." RFP at 142-144. Although not defined in the RFP, in evaluating past performance, "scope" was considered to be "performing the quality, quantity and level of custodial duties essentially similar to that of the Statement of Work," and "magnitude" was considered to be "50% of the annual government estimate, or a minimum of $600,000" per year, "[i]n order to not restrict competition among the [HUBZone] Offerors and maintain the requirements of the RFP." Agency Report, Tab 7A, Proposal Evaluation Report, Past Performance Evaluation, at 1. By the closing date of August 13, 24 offerors submitted proposals, which included past performance references. CMC submitted three past performance references, all of which the agency found to be current (i.e., performed within the past 3 years), but none of which were found to be relevant because they were not of the same "scope and magnitude" as required by the RFP. The agency found that two of CMC's contracts for janitorial and general cleaning provided "essentially similar" services, but that the dollar value of the contracts (approximately $200,000 and $100,000 per year) was far less in magnitude than $600,000 per year. A third contract was found sufficient in magnitude, but not in scope, since the services provided were for operations and maintenance, not custodial services. Since the agency found that none of CMC's contracts were sufficiently similar in both scope and magnitude, it determined that the contracts were not relevant and gave CMC a "neutral/unknown confidence" rating for past performance. /1/ Agency Report, Tab 7A, Proposal Evaluation Report, Past Performance Evaluation, at 16-17. Navales submitted five references, all which were found to be current and relevant, that is, meeting the scope and magnitude requirements. The agency rated Navales's past performance as "very good/significant confidence," noting strengths such as Navales's "strong top management, excellent administrative support and experienced project managers." The agency determined that Navales's past performance left "little doubt of the capability and reliability of performance of the [Statement of Work]," while, in contrast, there was "concern whether [CMC] is able to meet the scope and magnitude of the RFP having provided no relevant performance ratings for review." /2/ Agency Report, Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, at 6. The agency recognized that CMC proposed the lowest price of all offerors at almost 43 percent below the government estimate of approximately $6.8 million. /3/ Navales's price, while still below the government estimate, was approximately 7 percent, or $290,000, higher than CMC's.