B-296511.3, Triad Logistics Services Corporation, October 20, 2005

B-296511.3 Oct 20, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Triad Logistics Services Corporation protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to M1 Support Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4897-05-R-0010, for transient support services. Triad challenges the Air Force's evaluation of the offerors' past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296511.3, Triad Logistics Services Corporation, October 20, 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: Triad Logistics Services Corporation File: B-296511.3 Date: October 20, 2005 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. William A. Roberts, III, Esq., and Richard B. O'Keeffe, Jr., Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for M1 Support Services, Inc., an intervenor. Maj. Lawrence M. Anderson, and Pamela A. Dugger, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging past performance evaluation is denied where record shows evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme. DECISION Triad Logistics Services Corporation protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to M1 Support Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4897-05-R-0010, for transient support services. Triad challenges the Air Force's evaluation of the offerors' past performance. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was set aside for small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 10-month base period, with four 1-year option periods, to provide transient support services at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.[1] The solicitation stated that award would be made on a –best value— basis, considering price and past performance. Proposals would be assigned a past performance rating of exceptional/high confidence, very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/some confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, marginal/little confidence, or unsatisfactory/no confidence. Past performance was significantly more important than price. The agency received five proposals, including Triad's and M1's. Triad, a recently formed company, offered a price of $1,116,686, and proposed to subcontract with [DELETED], while M1 offered a price of $1,026,962, and proposed no subcontractors. After receiving notice that the contract had been awarded to M1, Triad challenged the evaluation in a protest filed in our Office. Thereafter, the agency proposed corrective action; it would reevaluate the proposals and make a new award decision. We therefore dismissed the protest as academic (B-296511, B'296511.2, June 30, 2005). In the reevaluation, Triad's proposal received a past performance rating of very good/significant confidence. The agency noted that Triad, as a recently formed company, had submitted no past performance information for itself or for its president or chief executive officer. While this would result in a rating of neutral/unknown confidence, the agency also noted that [DELETED] had received four exceptional past performance ratings for contracts with the same requirements. Considering Triad's lack of past performance along with [DELETED] exceptional ratings, the agency decided that Triad warranted an overall past performance rating of very good/significant confidence. This reflected the agency's view that, notwithstanding [DELETED] exceptional ratings, there was some risk associated with having a prime contractor with no past performance of its own perform 51 percent of the contract work.[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, Evaluation Team Worksheet, at 4. The agency also rated M1's past performance very good/significant confidence. Of the four contracts M1 submitted to be evaluated for past performance, two were found to be partially relevant, and M1 received exceptional ratings for its performance under both. Rather than rating M1's past performance exceptional/high confidence overall, however, the agency rated M1 very good to reflect the fact that M1's past performance was only partially relevant. Id. at 5. Since M1's proposed price was low, the agency again determined that M1's proposal offered the best value. Triad maintains that the agency improperly used its lack of relevant past performance to lower its overall past performance rating from exceptional to very good.