Si-Nor, Inc., B-292748.2; B-292748.3; B-292748.4, January 7, 2004

Si-Nor, Inc., B-292748.2; B-292748.3; B-292748.4, January 7, 2004 TITLE: Si-Nor, Inc., B-292748.2; B-292748.3; B-292748.4, January 7, 2004 BNUMBER: B-292748.2; B-292748.3; B-292748.4 DATE: January 7, 2004 ********************************************************************** Si-Nor, Inc., B-292748.2; B-292748.3; B-292748.4, January 7, 2004 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Si-Nor, Inc. File: B-292748.2; B-292748.3; B-292748.4 Date: January 7, 2004 Karen D. Powell, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, for the protester. Henry F. Johnson for International Resource Recovery, Inc., an intervenor. Robert Little, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 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. Agency evaluation of protester*s past performance is unobjectionable where protester*s past performance record included adverse information, and the agency pointed out the areas of concern during discussions, considered the protester*s explanations, and reasonably concluded that a [deleted] rating was warranted. 2. In evaluating awardee*s experience and past performance, it was unreasonable for the agency to consider a prior contract that was substantially smaller in terms of dollar value than the solicitation*s requirements, given that the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate an offeror*s experience and past performance only under contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation requirements. DECISION Si-Nor, Inc. protests the award of a contract to International Resource Recovery, Inc. (IRRI) for family housing refuse and recycling collection services at various locations in Hawaii under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62742-03-R-2227, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). Si-Nor principally alleges that the agency improperly evaluated its past performance, as well as the past performance and experience of IRRI. We deny the protest in part and sustain it in part. The RFP, which was issued as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract (with an indefinite-quantity component) for family housing refuse and recycling collection services at various locations in Oahu, Hawaii, for a base year with four 1-year options. As a general matter, the RFP required *the collection, segregation, and disposal of refuse and recycled materials* to include curbside and bulk pick-ups of refuse, special pick-ups, and other refuse or recycling pick-ups as directed by the contracting officer. RFP S: C at 1.1. The agency was able to quantify a substantial portion of its refuse collection and recycling requirements. As a consequence, the RFP included a schedule of the agency*s quantifiable requirements for which the agency sought fixed prices. See Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Pre-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum, July 10, 2003, at 6; RFP at Attach. J-B1. Services that the agency could not quantify (e.g., providing on-call collection for 40 cubic yard dumpsters) were listed under the indefinite-quantity portion of the RFP, which included an estimated quantity for various line items for which the agency sought unit prices. See AR, Tab 5, supra, at 6; RFP at Attach. J-B2. Under the indefinite-quantity portion, the RFP included a line item in the fixed amount of $750,000, representing the estimated landfill/disposal costs for this portion of the contract. See RFP at Attach. J-B2. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the *best value* based on an evaluation of two equally important evaluation factors: price and technical. The technical evaluation factor was comprised of two subfactors: past performance/experience and technical approach, which were of equal importance. As it relates to this protest, the past performance/experience subfactor was comprised of two elements, which were of equal weight: past performance (which was comprised of the following five subelements: quality of service, schedule, cost control, business relations, and management of key personnel) and experience. The RFP also provided that offerors would be assigned a risk rating for past performance/experience and for technical approach. In order to evaluate proposals under the experience element, the RFP required offerors to submit a list of references. Specifically, the RFP stated: Experience.