American Artisan Productions, Inc., B-292559; B-292559.2, October 7, 2003

American Artisan Productions, Inc., B-292559; B-292559.2, October 7, 2003 TITLE: American Artisan Productions, Inc., B-292559; B-292559.2, October 7, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292559; B-292559.2 DATE: October 7, 2003 ********************************************************************** American Artisan Productions, Inc., B-292559; B-292559.2, October 7, 2003 Decision Matter of: American Artisan Productions, Inc. File: B-292559; B-292559.2 Date: October 7, 2003 Arthur Friedman for the protester. Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation instructed offerors to submit past performance references for projects similar in size, complexity and nature to the contract being awarded and indicated that past performance would be evaluated based on performance of work similar in nature to that required by the solicitation, the agency reasonably downgraded protester*s proposal for not identifying project references that were comparable in dollar value to that of the requirement solicited. 2. Because solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate the quality and workmanship of samples of museum exhibit work completed by offerors* proposed personnel, it was reasonable for the agency to consider the aesthetic quality of the work samples submitted by the offerors. 3. Contracting agency reasonably concluded that awardee*s use of a subcontractor which had participated in the development of the solicitation*s specifications did not present an organizational conflict of interest because the subcontractor had worked only on design aspects of the specifications, more than one contractor was involved in preparing the specifications, and the subcontractor was not in a position to draft specifications favoring its own products. DECISION American Artisan Productions, Inc. (AAP) protests the award of a contract to Promotion Products, Inc. (PPI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N9325020022, issued by the National Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior, for services in connection with museum exhibits at the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, a national park in Kimberly, Oregon. AAP principally alleges that the agency*s evaluation of its technical proposal was improper, and that the award to PPI was improper due to an impermissible conflict of interest resulting from PPI*s use of a subcontractor (High Desert Museum (HDM)) which had assisted NPS in developing the RFP*s specifications. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on February 11, 2003, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the design, development, fabrication and installation of approximately 2,400 square feet of museum exhibits, and several stand-alone lobby exhibits, at the Thomas Condon Paleontology Center, and for approximately 500 square feet of museum exhibits at the James Cant Ranch House, both of which are located at the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. The solicitation specifically stated that the contractor is to provide *project management, additional exhibit design, where needed; production, and installation services for all exhibit elements, including murals, models, fossil mounts, audio (soundscapes), audio equipment, lighting, and security elements . . . .* RFP S: C, at 1. Prior to issuing the solicitation, NPS, in partnership with HDM (as well as other contractors), completed approximately 95 percent of the planning and design development work for the exhibits at the two sites. These plans and designs were then incorporated by NPS in the solicitation as exhibit specifications and drawings. Remaining design elements include development of final edited text for exhibit panels and selection of final graphics for the panels. The RFP listed four technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) past performance; (2) ability to fabricate both cultural and natural history exhibitry; (3) key personnel; and (4) samples of work. Five subfactors were listed under the past performance factor: (1) quality of products and services; (2) customer satisfaction; (3) cost control; (4) timeliness of performance; and (5) business relations. As relevant to the subject protest, under the samples of work factor, proposals were to be evaluated based on *the quality and workmanship of exhibits as shown by photographs and a description of the exhibit projects that were completed by key personnel proposed for use under the contract.* RFP S: M, at 2.