B-297524; B-297524.2, NVT Technologies, Inc., February 2, 2006

B-297524; B-297524.2, NVT Technologies, Inc., February 2, 2006 TITLE: B-297524; B-297524.2, NVT Technologies, Inc., February 2, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297524; B-297524.2 DATE: February 2, 2006 ************************************************************** B-297524; B-297524.2, NVT Technologies, Inc., February 2, 2006 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: NVT Technologies, Inc. File: B-297524; B-297524.2 Date: February 2, 2006 Jeffrey A. Lovitky, Esq., for the protester. James J. McCullough, Esq., and Steven A. Alerding, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for SelectTech Services Corporation, an intervenor. Maj. Jeffrey Branstetter, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency's evaluation of past performance and source selection decision is denied where record shows that the evaluation and award decision were reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and in accordance with applicable procurement rules. DECISION NVT Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to SelectTech Services Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8601-05-R-0034, issued by the Department of the Air Force for facility/laboratory management and equipment maintenance services at the Air Force Research Laboratories at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. NVT challenges the agency's evaluation of the proposals, primarily contending that its past performance was unreasonably downgraded for failure to demonstrate a greater degree of relevance to the current requirements, and that the awardee's proposal is unacceptable for taking exception to material terms of the solicitation.[1] We deny the protests. The RFP, issued on May 24, 2005, contemplates the award of a time-and-materials, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and 3 option years. RFP at 35. Offerors were advised that their proposals were to "include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims," and that award would be made to the offeror providing the agency with "the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably." Id. at 37, 54. The following three evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were provided: mission capability (to be evaluated for technical acceptability only), past performance, and price. A price/past performance tradeoff was to be conducted if the lowest-priced proposal was not rated exceptional for past performance. Id. at 53, 55. The RFP advised that the past performance evaluations would be based on the offerors' proposals, past performance reference questionnaires received, and data obtained from other sources. Offerors were to provide descriptions of the work they performed in order for the agency to assess the efforts' relevance to the current performance requirements; the RFP specifically cautioned, however, that the agency would not be bound by an offeror's opinion of the relevance of its past performance efforts. Id. Offerors were to provide contract information and references for up to three recent customers with relevant work of similar scope and complexity, in sufficient detail to demonstrate the ability to perform the proposed effort. Id. at 42, 46. Reference questionnaires were to be reviewed for the quality of work performed; ratings of exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory were to be assigned to indicate the overall quality of the contractor's work efforts. Separately, the relevance of those efforts was to be assessed; ratings of highly relevant (involving essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexity), relevant (much of the same magnitude of effort and complexity), somewhat relevant (some of the magnitude of effort and complexity), and not relevant (little of the magnitude of effort and complexity) were to be assigned. Id. at 57-58.