B-298076.2, Morgan-Keller, Inc., August 1, 2006

B-298076.2 Aug 01, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Morgan-Keller, Inc. (MKI) protests the award of a contract to Nelson Refrigeration, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3002-05-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the construction of a new commissary facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland for the Defense Commissary Agency. The protester maintains that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal and, thus, made a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298076.2, Morgan-Keller, Inc., August 1, 2006 Decision Matter of: Morgan-Keller, Inc. File: B-298076.2 Date: August 1, 2006 Michael M. Mock for the protester. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Monica A. Ceruti, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 Agency's evaluation of offerors' experience and past performance and the resulting award determination are unobjectionable where the evaluation and the award determination were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Morgan-Keller, Inc. (MKI) protests the award of a contract to Nelson Refrigeration, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3002-05-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the construction of a new commissary facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland for the Defense Commissary Agency. The protester maintains that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal and, thus, made a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract on the basis of the proposal which offered the best value to the government. Under the RFP, the past performance evaluation factor was considered significantly more important than price. The past performance evaluation factor consisted of the following five subfactors listed in order of importance: quality control, timely performance, management effectiveness, compliance with labor standards, and compliance with safety standards. The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate an offeror's present/past performance using descriptive adjectives (satisfactory, good, very good, and exceptional) that most accurately defined the offeror's performance for each identified subfactor. The RFP also stated that the evaluation would look at the extent of successfully completed commissary and/or commercial supermarket construction experience. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals. Offerors were required to forward a copy of a questionnaire contained in the RFP to a minimum of three, but not more than five, references for whom the offeror performed –similar— construction/services within the past 3 years. The RFP provided that more relevant projects would receive greater consideration during the evaluation. The RFP further provided that relevance would be based on the similarity, complexity, and size of the projects being evaluated and stated that the most relevant performance would consist of experience in the construction of new commissaries or commercial grocery stores which included extensive product refrigeration equipment. Projects for construction, expansion, and renovation of government facilities and commercial retail or office space would be considered relevant, especially when the contractor had implemented plans to minimize disruption of daily business operations. Other types of construction projects would be evaluated as only slightly relevant. The agency received seven proposals, including proposals from MKI and Nelson. MKI submitted the lowest price, but was not as highly rated as Nelson under the past performance evaluation factor. Award was made to Nelson on August 15, 2005. After a protest was filed with our Office by another offeror, the agency decided to terminate the original award and to hold discussions with all offerors. After receipt and evaluation of revised proposals, award was made again to Nelson on February 21, 2006. MKI and another offeror then filed protests with our Office. The agency subsequently decided to take corrective action based on the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. The agency then selected a new evaluation team and source selection authority (SSA) and reevaluated the previously submitted proposals. The SSA's tradeoff decision focused primarily on the proposals of Nelson and another offeror. On April 24, the agency again awarded a contract to Nelson. The SSA specifically concluded that Nelson's exceptional past performance justified the payment of a price premium to Nelson compared to firms with lower rated, lower priced proposals.