Aerosol Monitoring & Analysis, Inc., B-296197, June 30, 2005

B-296197 Jun 30, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Aerosol Monitoring & Analysis, Inc. (AMA) protests the award of a contract to Industrial Hygiene & Training, LLC (IH&T) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0095-04-R-0050, issued by the Department of Defense (DoD), for industrial hygiene, safety, and environmental services. AMA argues that DoD's evaluation of the awardee's past performance was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Aerosol Monitoring & Analysis, Inc., B-296197, June 30, 2005 Decision Matter of: Aerosol Monitoring & Analysis, Inc. File: B-296197 Date: June 30, 2005 David S. Cohen, Esq., Catherine K. Kroll, Esq., John J. O'Brien, Esq., and Rowena E. Laxa, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for the protester. Janet N. Repka, Esq., and Andrew Bramnick, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated awardee's technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably gave awardee evaluation credit for past performance of companies and key personnel that were proposed to perform the contract services. DECISION Aerosol Monitoring & Analysis, Inc. (AMA) protests the award of a contract to Industrial Hygiene & Training, LLC (IH&T) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0095-04-R-0050, issued by the Department of Defense (DoD), for industrial hygiene, safety, and environmental services. AMA argues that DoD's evaluation of the awardee's past performance was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery contract for a base period with 4 option years. RFP at 122. The contractor will be responsible for providing comprehensive industrial hygiene, safety and environmental services at the Pentagon and other DoD controlled spaces. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering price and technical quality. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated in two areas: technical and price, with the technical area being the most important consideration but price would be a significant factor. The technical area was comprised of three evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) past performance, (2) technical approach (contains two subfactors), and (3) management approach. RFP at 103, 125. The RFP also established that price would be evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness. Id. at 126-7. With regard to the past performance factor, each offeror was to provide information regarding its performance of at least five contracts similar in size and complexity to the solicited services that were completed within the past 5 years. To evaluate past performance, the agency stated its intent to obtain information from the past performance references identified in each proposal, with the agency considering the quality and relevance of the offeror's past experience. RFP at 123, 125. The agency received several proposals and, after evaluating them and affording firms an opportunity to make oral presentations, assigned the following adjectival ratings to the proposals submitted by AMA and IH&T (the only proposals relevant here) [1] : IH&T AMA Past Performance/Risk Average/significant confidence [deleted] Technical Approach/Risk Average/significant confidence [deleted] Management Approach/Risk Average/significant confidence [deleted] Overall Technical Average/significant confidence [deleted] Ranking 2 3 Evaluated Price [deleted] [deleted] AR exh. 8, Proposal Analysis Report, and exh. 7, Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) Report. Based on these evaluation results, the source selection authority determined that IH&T's proposal reflected the best value to the government and made award to that firm. AR exh. 10, Source Selection Decision. AMA filed this protest following a debriefing provided by the agency. [2] The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of IH&T's proposal as "average/significant confidence" under the past performance evaluation factor on the basis that IH&T is a newly formed entity with limited experience, arguing that it was unreasonable for IH&T to have received a rating other than neutral. As support, AMA states that IH&T was established less than 2 weeks prior to the issuance of the RFP; therefore, the firm had no past performance history to evaluate much less sufficient past performance that would entitle IH&T to an "average/significant confidence" rating. Protest at 5. The predicate to Aerosol's arguments is its view that the agency improperly considered the past performance history of IH&T's employees and/or corporate partners.