B-297758, United Paradyne Corporation, March 10, 2006

B-297758 Mar 10, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights United Paradyne Corporation (UPC) protests the decision not to select its proposal for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8601-05-R-0050, issued by the Department of the Air Force for fuels management services at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Ohio. The protester contends that the Air Force's evaluation of its past performance and the agency's "best value" tradeoff determination were unreasonable. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-297758, United Paradyne Corporation, March 10, 2006 Decision Matter of: United Paradyne Corporation File: B-297758 Date: March 10, 2006 Joseph Hasay for the protester. David B. Dempsey, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., and Anand Ramana, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Four Winds Services, Inc., the intervenor. Eric Kattner and Maj. Jeffrey Branstetter, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that past performance evaluation was unreasonable is sustained where agency used methodology to determine performance confidence ratings that improperly penalized offerors with relevant experience for their non-relevant experience and that effectively gave equal weight to highly relevant and non-relevant performance. DECISION United Paradyne Corporation (UPC) protests the decision not to select its proposal for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8601-05-R-0050, issued by the Department of the Air Force for fuels management services at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Ohio. The protester contends that the Air Force's evaluation of its past performance and the agency's –best value— tradeoff determination were unreasonable. We sustain the protest. The RFP, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, provided for the evaluation of proposals on the basis of three factors: mission capability, past performance, and price. Mission capability was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, with only those proposals receiving ratings of acceptable proceeding to evaluation of past performance and price. Past performance and price, which were of approximately equal weight, were to be traded off against one another in the determination of best value. The solicitation provided for the assignment of performance confidence ratings to offerors based on their past performance. There were six possible ratings, ranging from exceptional/high confidence (–Based on the offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort—) to unsatisfactory/no confidence (–Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort—).[1] RFP at 45. The RFP advised that the past performance evaluation would be accomplished by reviewing offerors' relevant present and recent past performance; the solicitation defined recent past performance as work performed within the last 3 years and relevant contracts as contracts for similar services with similar scope and complexity. To facilitate evaluation of their past performance, offerors were instructed to submit with their proposals a list of all relevant past and present performance (with contact information) and to furnish information regarding all terminated contracts since 2000. The RFP did not specify a required minimum number of contract references. Nine proposals were received by the July 13, 2005 closing date. All were determined to be technically acceptable. After evaluation of past performance and price, the source selection authority (SSA) selected the proposal of Four Winds Services, Inc. (FWSI), to which the agency evaluators had assigned a performance confidence rating of satisfactory/confidence and which offered a price of $7,898,073, as representing the best value to the government. UPC's proposal received a performance confidence rating of very good/significant confidence and was higher in price than FWSI's. The agency awarded FWSI a contract on December 1. UPC requested and received an agency debriefing and then protested to our Office on December 16. UPC takes issue with the agency's evaluation of its past performance, arguing that the Air Force unreasonably failed to take into account its performance of a highly similar contract at Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico and that the agency did not give it sufficient credit for its performance of contracts at Vandenberg AFB and at the Kennedy Space Center. The protester further argues with regard to the KennedySpaceCenter contract that, even to the extent that the agency could reasonably have viewed the effort as non-relevant, performance of a non-relevant contract should not have negatively affected its performance confidence rating.