DSC Cleaning, Inc., B-292125, June 25, 2003

B-292125 Jun 25, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's proposal was properly excluded from the competitive range where. It was not among most highly-rated proposals. Protester fails to show that evaluation was unreasonable. The three factors were approximately equal in importance and. Offerors were to complete and submit with their proposals attachment 9. That are of services similar to this requirement. The evaluation under past performance was to include. The evaluation of work experience was to include current and recent projects and/or the years of experience of the firm. DSC's proposal was rated pink/marginal under the technical capability factor. DSC's proposal was rated red/high risk under the work experience subfactor based on the Army's finding that DSC provided no references to indicate that it had any experience in dining facility attendant services. View Decision DSC Cleaning, Inc., B-292125, June 25, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION DSC Cleaning, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAPC50-02-R-0023, issued by the Department of the Army for dining facility attendant services for Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Army Airfield, Oahu, Hawaii. DSC contends that the Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal with respect to performance risk. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on November 6, 2002 as a section 8(a) set-aside, provided for the "best value" award of a fixed-price contract for an 8-month base period, with four 1-year options. RFP, attach. 12, at 1-6. The RFP identified the following technical evaluation factors (and subfactors): Technical capability (Workforce Plan/Key Personnel Qualifications, Mobilization/Phase-in); Quality Control (Quality Control Plan, Safety and Training); and Performance Risk (Past Performance, Work Experience). The three factors were approximately equal in importance and, combined, approximately equal in importance to price. RFP, attach. 3, at 1-2. The RFP advised offerors to address each evaluation factor and subfactor in their proposals. As relevant here, under performance risk the RFP specifically advised offerors to provide information pertaining to the experience of the firm and current and previous federal, state, municipal or commercial contracts within the last 3 years, for services similar to this requirement. RFP, attach. 3, at 3. Additionally, offerors were to complete and submit with their proposals attachment 9, Experience Reference Information, for each reference and request that each reference complete and separately submit attachment 10, Past Performance Questionnaire. Id. The solicitation stated that the agency would "subjectively assess performance risk based on the offeror's overall past performance and experience," defined experience as "those projects, in progress or completed, that are of services similar to this requirement," and stated that "[p]ast performance reflects how well the offeror has performed these services." RFP, attach. 3, at 4. The evaluation under past performance was to include, among other things, conformance to specification, quality of performance, customer satisfaction, adherence to work schedules, timely submittal of required reports, and the effectiveness of the contractor's quality control process. Id. The evaluation of work experience was to include current and recent projects and/or the years of experience of the firm. The solicitation specified that the experience of offerors' proposed project manager and other key personnel may be considered for those newly formed entities without previous work experience. Id. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) used color/risk ratings to evaluate proposals--blue/very low risk; green/low risk; yellow/moderate risk; pink/high risk; red/very high risk; and gray/unknown risk--under the performance risk factor (proposals received only color ratings under the technical capability and quality control factors). Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Pre-Negotiation Objective Memorandum, at 6-7. A red/very high risk rating indicated that the offeror's experience and past performance record provided extreme doubt that the offeror would or could successfully perform the required effort. A gray/unknown risk rating indicated that the offeror had no relevant performance record and an unknown probability of success. /1/ Id. at 7. The Army received several proposals by the amended December 17 closing time. /2/ AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 1. DSC's proposal was rated pink/marginal under the technical capability factor, red/unacceptable under the quality control factor, and pink/high risk under the performance risk factor. AR at 3, 4.