B-297313, PHT Corporation, December 8, 2005

B-297313 Dec 08, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PHT Corporation protests the award of a contract to Airtronic Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52H09-04-R-0119, issued by the Army Materiel Command for M9 magazine cartridges. PHT maintains that the agency improperly evaluated the past performance record of Airtronic and that Airtronic's price is unreasonably low. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297313, PHT Corporation, December 8, 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: PHT Corporation File: B-297313 Date: December 8, 2005 Cyrus E. Phillips IV, Esq., for the protester. Garry S. Grossman, Esq., and Aaron M. Forester, Esq., SchiffHardin, for Airtronic Services, Inc., an intervenor. Victor G. Vogel, Esq., and Joseph M. Picchiotti, Esq., Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation defined relevant past performance as performance on contracts with a value over $500,000 that demonstrates the successful manufacture of M9 magazine cartridge or similar item, award to offeror with no relevant past performance was reasonable where source selection authority recognized the awardee's lack of relevant past performance, but nonetheless reasonably concluded, consistent with the solicitation, that the awardee's overall past performance record justified a –moderate— risk rating. DECISION PHT Corporation protests the award of a contract to Airtronic Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52H09-04-R-0119, issued by the Army Materiel Command for M9 magazine cartridges. PHT maintains that the agency improperly evaluated the past performance record of Airtronic and that Airtronic's price is unreasonably low.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on April 26, 2005, as a 100-percent small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a guaranteed minimum quantity of 900,000 M9 magazine cartridges. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the –best value— based on an evaluation of past performance/risk and price. The RFP stated that past performance was slightly more important than price. Past performance was to be rated adjectively as follows: Very Low Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, very little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Low Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Moderate Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. High Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Unknown Risk: The offeror had little or no recent/relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. RFP sect. M.2.a. Under the past performance evaluation factor, the RFP stated that the government could consider the currency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the offeror's past performance information, as well as general trends in the offeror's performance, and the firm's demonstrated corrective actions, and could use information obtained from other sources in addition to references furnished by the offeror. The RFP required an offeror to submit contract references representing its recent, relevant performance. RFP sect. L.5. The RFP defined –recent— as any contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action had occurred within the last 3 years of the issuance of the subject RFP. The RFP defined –relevant— as –performance on contracts with a contract value over $500,000 that demonstrates the offeror has successfully manufactured or provided M9 Magazine Cartridge or similar items.— Id. The agency received five proposals. After evaluating these proposals, the agency established a competitive range of three proposals, including the proposals of PHT and Airtronic. Discussions were conducted with these three offerors. To address the past performance evaluation factor, Airtronic initially submitted information for 10 contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Source Selection Decision, at 3. During discussions, the agency notified Airtronic that it had determined that none of the 10 referenced contracts met the RFP definition of relevant, and requested that Airtronic identify relevant contracts. In response, Airtronic acknowledged that most of its government contract references only provided evidence of either Airtronic's machining capabilities or its ability to deliver on time.