Chenega Technical Products, LLC, B-295451.5, June 22, 2005

B-295451.5 Jun 22, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chenega Technical Products, LLC protests the decision by the Army Contracting Agency, Southern Region Contracting Center East, Department of the Army, not to award Chenega a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SE-R-0005, for continental United States support base services (CSBS). Chenega alleges that the evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable and that the agency's source selection decision was improper. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295451.5, Chenega Technical Products, LLC, June 22, 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: Chenega Technical Products, LLC File: B-295451.5 Date: June 22, 2005 William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the protester. Maj. Gregory R. Bockin and Lt. Col. David C. Hoffman, Department of the Army, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of agency's past performance evaluation is denied where record shows evaluation was reasonable and consistent with evaluation criteria; protester's disagreement with agency's evaluation is insufficient to show it was unreasonable. 2. Protest that agency's source selection decision was improperly based on a mechanical comparison of evaluation ratings is denied where the record shows the agency adequately considered offerors' prices and performance risk in its award determination. DECISION Chenega Technical Products, LLC protests the decision by the Army Contracting Agency, Southern Region Contracting Center East, Department of the Army, not to award Chenega a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SE-R-0005, for continental United States support base services (CSBS). Chenega alleges that the evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable and that the agency's source selection decision was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 6, 2004 as a total small-business set-aside, contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for a base year with four 1-year options to perform mobilization services previously performed by Army reservists or other uniformed personnel, in order to prepare soldiers for overseas deployments. The solicitation set forth a total of 12 functional task areas deemed essential to the CSBS process ( i.e. , plans, training, mobilization, security, human resources, finance, material management and supply, services, movements, equipment readiness and maintenance, billeting and facilities, and information management), as well as the mobilization stations at which the support base services would be performed. [1] RFP Section B4, attach. 1, Performance Work Statement, at 1. The solicitation identified three evaluation criteria: technical, past performance, and price. With regard to the evaluation of proposals, the RFP informed offerors that only those proposals determined to be "highly qualified" under the technical factor would be eligible for further evaluation and award. RFP Section M2. Among proposals rated as highly qualified under the technical evaluation factor, past performance was then to be considered in a tradeoff process as significantly more important than price in making the final determination regarding award. Id. Award was to be made to offerors whose proposals were determined to be the best value to the government, all factors considered. [2] RFP Section M1. Sixteen offerors, including Chenega, submitted proposals by the September 14 closing date. A technical review team evaluated the technical proposals and determined that 10 offerors, including Chenega, were highly qualified. Agency Report (AR), Tab G, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Technical Report, at 1. A past performance evaluation team (PPET) then evaluated the performance risk of those offerors determined to be highly qualified technically, using ratings of low performance risk, average performance risk, high performance risk, and neutral/ unknown risk. [3] The PPET originally rated Chenega as high performance risk, AR, Tab I, PPET Evaluation Worksheets, at 1; the source selection authority (SSA), however, later determined that Chenega merited a performance risk rating of average. AR, Tab R, Source Selection Decision, at 8. The SSA also concluded that the evaluated prices of all offerors found to be highly qualified technically were fair and reasonable. [4] Id. at 9-10. The SSA then selected for award those seven offerors whose proposals were evaluated as highly qualified technically, with low performance risk, and whose prices were found to be fair and reasonable. [5] Id.