B-297758.3, JWK International Corporation, August 31, 2006

B-297758.3 Aug 31, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JWK International Corporation (JWK) protests the failure of the Department of the Air Force to select its proposal for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8601-05-R-0050, for fuels management services at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. This protest follows the agency's reevaluation of proposals and reselection of an awardee in response to our decision sustaining a protest by United Paradyne Corporation (UPC). United Paradyne Corp., B-297758, Mar. 10, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 47. JWK argues that the Air Force's evaluation of its past performance and the agency's "best value" tradeoff determination were unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297758.3, JWK International Corporation, August 31, 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: JWK International Corporation File: B-297758.3 Date: August 31, 2006 Wayne A. Keup, Esq., for the protester. David B. Dempsey, Esq., and Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Four Winds Services, Inc., an intervenor. Major 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 1. Protest that agency should have considered experience of protester's proposed key personnel in evaluating protester's past performance is denied where record demonstrates that agency had a reasonable basis for deciding not to consider the qualifications of individual employees under the past performance evaluation factor. 2. Agency reasonably determined that exceptional performance by protester's proposed subcontractor on contracts that involved only a portion of the work required under the solicitation was insufficient to demonstrate that protester could be expected to perform the effort solicited at issue successfully. DECISION JWK International Corporation (JWK) protests the failure of the Department of the Air Force to select its proposal for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8601-05-R-0050, for fuels management services at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. This protest follows the agency's reevaluation of proposals and reselection of an awardee in response to our decision sustaining a protest by United Paradyne Corporation (UPC). United Paradyne Corp., B-297758, Mar. 10, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 47. JWK argues that the Air Force's evaluation of its past performance and the agency's –best value— tradeoff determination were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on June 2, 2005, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract and 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 to determine which proposal represented the best value to the government. The solicitation provided for the assignment of performance confidence ratings to offerors based on their past performance. There were six possible ratings: exceptional/high confidence, very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, marginal/little confidence, and unsatisfactory/no confidence. RFP at 45. Of significance to this protest, the RFP defined a rating of marginal/little confidence as follows: Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial doubts exist that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror's existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements. Id.The RFP advised that the evaluation of past performance would be accomplished by reviewing offerors' relevant present and recent past performance; the solicitation defined relevant contracts as contracts for similar services with similar scope and complexity. The RFP provided that a –relevancy determination— of the offeror's present and past performance, including joint venture partners and/or major subcontractors, would be made.