Universal Fidelity Corporation, B-294797.2, February 7, 2005

B-294797.2 Feb 07, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Universal Fidelity Corporation (UFC) protests the rejection of its proposal under "Request for Task Order Proposals for Private Collection Agency (PCA) 2004" issued by the Department of Education for proposals for collection services related to defaulted federal student loans. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294797.2, Universal Fidelity Corporation, February 7, 2005 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: Universal Fidelity Corporation File: B-294797.2 Date: February 7, 2005 O. Kevin Vincent, Esq., and Robert J. Wagman, Jr., Esq., Baker Botts, for the protester. Jeffrey C. Morhardt, Esq., and Jose Otero, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's past performance evaluation is denied, where the source selection authority considered the quality and relevance of vendors' past performance information consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Universal Fidelity Corporation (UFC) protests the rejection of its proposal under "Request for Task Order Proposals for Private Collection Agency (PCA) 2004" issued by the Department of Education for proposals for collection services related to defaulted federal student loans. We deny the protest. Education performs collection and administrative resolution activities with respect to defaulted federal student loans and, since 1981, has contracted with PCAs for these services. Statement of Work (SOW) at 1. Specifically, the agency contracted with a number of PCAs, initially assigning each the same number of accounts. Thereafter, the agency periodically evaluated the performance of each PCA under three criteria: dollars collected, accounts serviced, and administrative resolutions. The performance of the PCAs was ranked, and bonus payments and additional account assignments were based on each PCA's relative performance. Solicitation at 14; SOW at 4. This performance evaluation process is known as the "Competitive Performance and Continuous Surveillance (CPCS)" system. Solicitation at 14. In addition to the CPCS evaluation, there are other aspects of the collection services sought here that are unique to federal student loan accounts. For example, federal student loan collections involve the use of administrative wage garnishments and federal employee salary offsets. Agency Report (AR) at 2; see SOW at 10-11. In this regard, the agency states that successful contract performance depends upon a firm's familiarity with these tools and its ability to use them effectively, and upon PCAs having intimate knowledge of applicable federal statutes, regulations, policies and procedures. AR at 2-3; see SOW at 3-4. Other types of collections do not generally involve information systems and information management procedures of a size and complexity similar to that of federal student loan collections. Also, firms collecting loans, other than federal student loans, generally have smaller account volumes, and these other types of collections generally involve loans that have smaller average balances and shorter repayment terms. AR at 3, see SOW at 23-25. The solicitation, as amended, provided for multiple awards of task orders to vendors under their Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts. [1] Solicitation at 1, 10, 13. The agency reserved the right to award task orders without conducting discussions. Solicitation at 39. Vendors were informed that award would be made based on the evaluation of the following factors, which were identified as being in descending order of importance: Past Performance, including the past performance of key personnel, Technical Evaluation, Commitment to Small Business, and Pricing. [2] Solicitation at 40. With respect to the past performance factor, vendors were required to identify three examples of relevant past performance in a competitive environment since January 1, 2001. Vendors were also informed that the agency might consider other information available to it. The solicitation instructed vendors to: explain how this past performance is relevant to this task order's requirements. The Department considers the following to be the most significant factors contributing to relevance: Performance in a competitive environment (especially on CPCS), Performance collecting student loan debt, Performance collecting nationwide, and Performance handling large account volumes Other factors, such as debt types similar to student loan debt, may contribute to a lesser degree. Id. at 36.