B-298233.2; B-298233.3, Dellew Corporation, September 13, 2006

B-298233.2; B-298233.3, Dellew Corporation, September 13, 2006 TITLE: B-298233.2; B-298233.3, Dellew Corporation, September 13, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298233.2; B-298233.3 DATE: September 13, 2006 ************************************************************** B-298233.2; B-298233.3, Dellew Corporation, September 13, 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: Dellew Corporation File: B-298233.2; B-298233.3 Date: September 13, 2006 Timothy H. Power, Esq., Timothy H. Power Law Office, for the protester. Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, PC, for Defense Contract Services, Inc., an intervenor. Maj. John G. Terra, and Capt. David W. Armstrong, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance was unobjectionable where record establishes that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation factors. DECISION Dellew Corporation protests the award of a contract to Defense Contract Services, Inc. (DCSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4417-06-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, 16^th Contracting Squadron, for logistics readiness functions at Hurlburt Field, Florida. Dellew challenges the evaluation of past performance and the award to DCSI. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued as a small business set-aside on November 15, 2005, provided for award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, for a broad array of logistics readiness functions. The RFP provided a detailed statement of work (SOW) describing the required services, which included all of the functions of the procedures and analysis, document control, inventory, hazardous materials, and delivery sections of the 16^th Logistics Readiness Squadron (LRS). Specific tasks of each of these LRS sections--including, for example, obtaining and analyzing statistical data to determine the effectiveness of unit operations and processes, performing semi-annual analyses of customer complaints or problems, establishing and maintaining inventory schedules, conducting inventories of assets, researching inventory discrepancies, managing the receipt, storage, issue, inspection, and distribution of hazardous materials, maintaining the existence of a low-level radioactive storage facility, coordinating the disposition of radioactive material, and delivering all supplies and equipment to on-base activities--were listed in the solicitation. Award was to be made based on initial proposals, without discussions, to the firm whose offer was evaluated as the "best value" to the government, considering technical factors--mission capability (with two subfactors--quality control plan and transition plan) and past performance--and price. RFP amend. 1, at 5. The mission capability and past performance factors, combined, were equal in importance to price. Id. The evaluation under the mission capability factor (representing the evaluators' views as to the offeror's ability to meet performance or capability requirements) was expressed with color/adjectival ratings--blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, and red/unacceptable. The past performance evaluation was expressed in terms of high confidence, significant confidence, satisfactory confidence, unknown confidence, little confidence, and no confidence, representing the evaluators' assessment of an offeror's probability of successfully accomplishing the requirements. Id. at 6-7. Regarding past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to "identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and commercial) for efforts similar in size, scope, type, and complexity to the requirements stated in this RFP." RFP amend. 1, at 4. Offerors were to provide references for all recent and relevant work (up to 10 projects) performed in the last 3 years. References were to rate the contractor's performance as exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory in response to seven performance questions, including, for example, how well the vendor met required delivery/performance times, the contractor's standard of workmanship, and its ability to identify and solve problems as they occurred. Id. at 8, 10-11. Each reference also was to indicate, on a scale of 1 ("definitely yes") to 5 ("definitely no"), whether he or she would award a contract to the contractor today. The agency received 11 proposals, including Dellew's and DCSI's, by the January 19, 2006 due date.