B-297960, Del-Jen International Corporation, May 5, 2006

B-297960 May 05, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Del-Jen International Corporation protests the award of a contract to GS21, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5240-05-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Air Force for supply and transportation services at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Del-Jen alleges that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal, as well as the awardee's proposal, and thus reached an improper source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297960, Del-Jen International Corporation, May 5, 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: Del-Jen International Corporation File: B-297960 Date: May 5, 2006 William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Richard B. O'Keeffe, Esq., and William J. Grimaldi, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for the protester. Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Amy E. Laderberg, Esq., and Matthew J. Bonness, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for GS21, LLC, an intervenor. Maj. Jeffrey Branstetter and Thomas E. Sheldon, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a negotiated procurement that provided for a pass/fail technical evaluation and a tradeoff between past performance and price, with past performance being significantly more important than price, agency reasonably awarded a contract to the higher-priced offeror where the agency found, based upon the protester's performance of its incumbent contract, that the protester presented more performance risk than the awardee. DECISION Del-Jen International Corporation protests the award of a contract to GS21, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5240-05-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Air Force for supply and transportation services at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Del-Jen alleges that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal, as well as the awardee's proposal, and thus reached an improper source selection decision. We deny the protest. The Air Force issued the solicitation on June 29, 2005, seeking proposals for supply and transportation services at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, in the following five functional areas: (1) supply; (2) vehicle fleet management (including maintenance); (3) vehicle operations; (4) traffic management office; and (5) combat readiness. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a 2-year base period, plus four 1-year option periods, as well as the opportunity to earn additional –award term— periods based on successful performance. Award was to be made on a –best value— basis to the firm whose proposal was determined to be the –most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.— RFP at 78. The RFP set forth three evaluation factors: (1) technical capability, (2) past performance, and (3) price. Under the RFP, technical capability was to be evaluated solely to determine whether or not an offeror met minimum standards--a pass/fail evaluation. Acceptable proposals under the technical capability factor would then be subject to a tradeoff between past performance and price with past performance considered –significantly more important than price.— RFP at 80. The solicitation provided for the assignment of performance confidence ratings to offerors based on their past performance. There were six possible ratings, including, as it relates to the protest, exceptional/high confidence (–Based on the offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort—); very good/significant confidence (–Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort—); and satisfactory/confident (–Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort—).[1] RFP at 80-81. 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. –Relevant— was defined as –information that has a logical connection with the following: Ground Passenger Transportation, Cargo Transportation Service, Vehicle Management, Vehicle Maintenance, Personal Property, Passenger Travel, Supply Support, Supply Mobility and Contingency Supply.— RFP at 80.