B-294530.7, American Floor Consultants, Inc., June 15, 2006

B-294530.7 Jun 15, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Floor Consultants, Inc. (AFCI), a small business, protests the award of a contract to FloorPro, Inc. by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4861-04-R-A014 for application of chemically resistant urethane (CRU) on floors at various Air Force facilities. The protester contends that the agency improperly evaluated its past performance record and that AFCI's proposal should have been selected for award because it was the lowest-priced acceptable proposal. The protester also contends that the agency failed to take adequate corrective action in response to a prior protest. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294530.7, American Floor Consultants, Inc., June 15, 2006 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: American Floor Consultants, Inc. File: B-294530.7 Date: June 15, 2006 David M. Kupsky, Esq., for the protester. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq., and Capt. Joseph F. Pera, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance record is denied where agency reasonably determined that the past performance references were incomplete or not relevant. DECISION American Floor Consultants, Inc. (AFCI), a small business, protests the award of a contract to FloorPro, Inc. by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4861-04-R-A014 for application of chemically resistant urethane (CRU) on floors at various Air Force facilities. The protester contends that the agency improperly evaluated its past performance record and that AFCI's proposal should have been selected for award because it was the lowest-priced acceptable proposal. The protester also contends that the agency failed to take adequate corrective action in response to a prior protest. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals for application of CRU coating on floors at Nellis Air Force Base and Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, Nevada. The RFP required offerors to propose all labor, supplies, materials, supervision, transportation, and equipment for application of the coatings and subsequent floor maintenance. The RFP anticipated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, with fixed unit price task orders. The base performance period was 1 year, with four 1-year option periods. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of two factors, past performance and price, and that –[a]s a basis for award, price is of secondary consideration.— RFP at 56. The RFP provided that award would be based on a determination of which proposal offered the –best value— to the government and further stated that the government reserved the right to award to other than the lowest-priced proposal. Id. The agency received three proposals in response to the RFP. As relevant to this protest, the agency evaluated the offerors as follows: Price Past Performance/ Performance Confidence AFCI $4,337,500 Neutral/Unknown Confidence FloorPro $16,072,907 Exceptional/High Confidence [deleted] $18,120,844 Exceptional/High Confidence Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, Initial Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 1. The agency initially awarded the contract to FloorPro on September 21, 2005. The record shows that the agency had concluded that AFCI's proposed price was too low, and that the company could not perform the work at its proposed price. AR, Tab 17, Initial SSD, at 1. AFCI then filed a protest of the award with our Office, challenging the evaluation of its proposal and award to FloorPro. In a series of questions submitted in writing to the agency by our Office, the agency was advised to address whether it may have excluded AFCI from award consideration based on what was effectively a determination of non-responsibility. The agency subsequently determined that it would take corrective action by referring the matter to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a possible certificate of competency (COC) determination.[1] Contracting Officer's Statement at 7-8. The agency then requested that our Office dismiss the protest based on its decision to take corrective action; we did so on November 28, 2005. During the corrective action, however, the SBA refused to accept the agency's COC referral because it was not clear that a determination that AFCI was a responsible offeror would result in the award of a contract. Id.The agency subsequently conducted a new source selection process that reviewed the existing technical and price evaluations. Id. at 9.