B-295496.3, Poly-Pacific Technologies Inc., January 18, 2006

B-295496.3 Jan 18, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Poly-Pacific Technologies Inc. protests the award of a contract to Opti-Blast Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912JC-04-R-4020, issued by the National Guard Bureau, for plastic and glass media for use in removing paint from Army vehicles, and for the recycling of the used media. Poly-Pacific argues that the agency's evaluation of Opti-Blast's proposal under the solicitation's past performance evaluation factor was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295496.3, Poly-Pacific Technologies Inc., January 18, 2006 Decision Matter of: Poly-Pacific Technologies Inc. File: B-295496.3 Date: January 18, 2006 Karen Christian for the protester. Maj. Peter H. Tran, Department of the Army, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably determined that the contracts referenced in the awardee's proposal were relevant to the agency's past performance evaluation. DECISION Poly-Pacific Technologies Inc. protests the award of a contract to Opti-Blast Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912JC-04-R-4020, issued by the National Guard Bureau, for plastic and glass media for use in removing paint from Army vehicles, and for the recycling of the used media. Poly-Pacific argues that the agency's evaluation of Opti-Blast's proposal under the solicitation's past performance evaluation factor was unreasonable.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite- quantity contract for a base period of 1 year with two 1-year option periods. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the –best value— to the government, based upon the evaluation factors of past performance, technical, and price. The RFP specified that while proposals would be evaluated on a qualitative basis under the past performance factor, they would be rated as either –go— or –no-go— under the technical factor. The agency received proposals from three offerors, including Poly-Pacific and Opti'Blast. The proposals of Poly-Pacific and Opti-Blast were both evaluated as –low risk— under the past performance factor and –go— under the technical evaluation factor, at evaluated prices of $2,385,000 for Poly-Pacific and $2,216,000 for Opti'Blast. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Source Selection Evaluation Report and Award Decision, at 1-3; Tab 16, Price Evaluation. The source selection authority (SSA) selected Opti-Blast's proposal for award, and this protest followed. Poly-Pacific argues that the agency's evaluation of Opti-Blast's proposal under the past performance factor was unreasonable. The RFP informed offerors that –[e]valuators will consider current, relevant and trends of the performance information while conducting its performance evaluation,— and that –[c]urrent is performance occurring within the last five (5) years for the period beginning May 1999 through the solicitation release date.— The solicitation added that –[i]n assessing relevancy to the solicitation requirement, the Government will consider an offeror's references for the similarity of product, size, scope and complexity of contract performed to those required for the proposed effort,— and that –[c]ontracts that may be considered similar in size, scope and complexity are projects requiring delivery and recycling of the product within 10% of the quantities required herein.— The solicitation concluded that under the past performance factor an –[e]valuation will be made of the Quality and extent of related past performance comparable to the requirements of this solicitation.— RFP at 33. In order to facilitate the past performance evaluation, the RFP stated that proposals were to include –information on the number of contracts held, contract number, contract period, description of material an[d] work performed, contract dollar value, and point of contact and telephone number— regarding –contracts awarded to the contractor within the prior five (5) years.— RFP at 31. Opti-Blast's proposal included information regarding nine contracts awarded since 1999 as well as a lengthy client list. AR, Tab 22, Opti-Blast Proposal. The record reflects that three completed past performance questionnaires were received by the agency regarding the contracts detailed in Opti-Blast's proposal. AR, Tab 23, Completed Past Performance Questionnaires.