Robert Clay, Inc., B-292443, August 14, 2003

B-292443 Aug 14, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest based on information learned in non-required debriefing is timely if filed within 10 days of the debriefing. 2. Because past performance and price were the sole evaluation factors. Award was reasonably based on the awardee's lower-priced proposal. Clay argues that past performance was unreasonably evaluated. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis. The assessment of past performance was to result in an overall performance risk rating of either exceptional. Offerors without "relevant" past performance were to receive a neutral rating. Meaning that the rating was to be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Relevant contracts were said to "include. Are not limited to. Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP. View Decision Robert Clay, Inc., B-292443, August 14, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Robert Clay, Inc. protests the award of a contract for roof repairs to Platinum One Contracting, Inc., by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4416-02-R-0016. Clay argues that past performance was unreasonably evaluated. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) set aside, contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery requirements contact for roof repairs. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis, considering past performance and price, with past performance being "significantly more important than" price. RFP at 33. The assessment of past performance was to result in an overall performance risk rating of either exceptional, very good, satisfactory, neutral, marginal, or unsatisfactory. Offerors without "relevant" past performance were to receive a neutral rating, meaning that the rating was to be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. RFP, amend. 1, at 3. Relevant contracts were said to "include, but are not limited to, repair and/or replacement of standing seam metal roofing, of the same magnitude of this project (between $1,000,000.00 and $3,000,000.00)." RFP, amend. 3, at 1. Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP. Platinum submitted the lowest-priced offer. This offer was significantly lower priced than Clay's second low offer. Both proposals were given overall performance risk ratings of very good, based on the offerors' and their teaming partners' past performance evaluations. Platinum's and Clay's own past performance was rated neutral because their listed contracts were not found to be relevant in scope and/or magnitude. However, these firms' teaming partners' past performance was rated exceptional because their listed contracts were found to be relevant with exceptional performance reports. The overall very good risk ratings for Clay and Platinum were determined to be the midpoint between their neutral ratings and the exceptional ratings of their teaming partners. Agency Report, Tab 6, Past Performance Evaluations for Platinum and Clay. The Air Force determined that "[s]ince both ratings were Very Good, there isn't any risk reduction to the Government if we award to the higher priced offeror." Accordingly, Platinum's lower-priced proposal was found to represent the best value and was selected for award. Id., Integrated Assessment Best Value Decision, at 2. A notice of award was "uploaded to the Electronic Posting System website" /1/ on March 26, Contracting Officer's Statement at 1, and provided by facsimile to Clay on March 28. This notice provided the name of the awardee, contract price, and the general basis for award. On March 28, Clay requested additional information concerning the procurement under the Freedom of Information Act. On March 29, Clay mailed a request for a debriefing to the contracting officer, which the Air Force received on April 2. On April 1, Clay mailed an agency-level protest to the Air Force, asserting that its proposal "represented the lowest price and lowest risk to the government." Clay complained that the Air Force had not responded to its information request so it did "not have sufficient information at this time to set forth all its[] grounds as to why the contract award is improper," but stated that it was filing this protest "to preserve its[] right to make a complete bid protest and will supplement this letter after sufficient documentation has been produced." Protester's Comments, Tab F, Agency Protest, at 1. The protest was received by the Air Force on April 3. On April 9, the Air Force provided Clay with a debriefing. On April 14, Clay mailed a supplemental protest to the Air Force.