AC Technologies, Inc., B-293013; B-293013.2, January 14, 2004

AC Technologies, Inc., B-293013; B-293013.2, January 14, 2004 TITLE: AC Technologies, Inc., B-293013; B-293013.2, January 14, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293013; B-293013.2 DATE: January 14, 2004 ********************************************************************** AC Technologies, Inc., B-293013; B-293013.2, January 14, 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: AC Technologies, Inc. File: B-293013; B-293013.2 Date: January 14, 2004 J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, for the protester. Edward H. Kim, Esq., Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, for Ace Info Solutions, Inc., an intervenor. Fred Kopatich, Esq., and Mark Langstein, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated quotations in the area of past performance is denied where record shows that agency reasonably downgraded protester based on [deleted], and reasonably credited awardee for performance of contracts performed by both it and its subcontractor where nothing in the solicitation prohibited the agency from considering subcontractor*s prior contracts. DECISION AC Technologies, Inc. (ACT) protests the issuance of a task order to Ace Info Solutions, Inc. (AIS) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. AFJ6000-3-00630-I, issued by the Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency, for information technology (IT) services. ACT principally maintains that the agency misevaluated quotations. We deny the protest. The RFQ, as amended, contemplated the issuance of a labor hours-based task order under the successful vendor*s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. Firms were advised that their quotations would be evaluated using price and several non-price considerations. The non-price considerations (and their relative weights for evaluation purposes) were past performance (30 points), management approach (25 points), technical approach (25 points), and skill level of proposed staffing (20 points). Agency Report (AR), exh. 4, at 19. Firms found to be within the competitive range would be required to make oral presentations, the quality of which could affect a firm*s score under one or another of the non-price considerations. Id. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the quotation deemed to offer the *best value.* The agency received quotations from five vendors, three of which, including ACT and AIS, were found to be in the competitive range. These three firms received requests to make oral presentations, and thereafter were afforded an opportunity to submit revisions to their quotations. After the agency received and evaluated the revised quotations, it assigned a numeric score of 76.33 to the protester*s quotation and a score of 87.17 to the awardee*s. The protester quoted a price of $2,881,128, and the awardee quoted a price of $3,222,317. On the basis of AIS*s superior technical rating, the agency found that its quote represented the best value to the government despite its higher price, and thus issued a task order to that firm. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ACT The record shows that ACT*s quotation listed [deleted] prior contracts--under all of which ACT*s performance was rated excellent--and the agency assigned ACT an initial past performance score of 27 (of the possible 30) points. The agency noted, however, that although ACT was the incumbent contractor for this requirement, [deleted]. During ACT*s oral presentation, the agency asked the firm whether it had any *lessons learned* in connection with its performance as the incumbent contractor. In response, ACT stated that [deleted]. AR, exh. 18 at 5. Based on this response, the agency lowered ACT*s past performance score to 22 points. ACT does not deny that its performance under the prior contract suffered from the deficiencies identified by it during its oral presentation and relied on by the agency in its evaluation. Rather, it maintains that downgrading its quotation for this reason was improper because, unlike under its prior contract, its quotation here was based on ACT*s performing the contract with its own, rather than with subcontractor, personnel. In reviewing protests of an agency*s evaluation of proposals or quotations, we do not reevaluate the proposals or quotations. Rather, we consider only whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. CWIS, LLC, B-287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 119 at 2.