B-298576, Singleton Enterprises, October 30, 2006

B-298576 Oct 31, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Singleton Enterprises protests the award of a contract to Chezcore, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-05P-06-SVC-3022, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for exterior masonry repair to a federal building in Battle Creek, Michigan. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals under the solicitation's past performance factor was unreasonable. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-298576, Singleton Enterprises, October 30, 2006 Decision Matter of: Singleton Enterprises File: B-298576 Date: October 30, 2006 Arthur Wayne Singleton for the protester. Stanley M. Wyre, Esq., Stanley M. Wyre Associates, L.L.C., for Chezcore, Inc., the intervenor. Ruth Kowarski, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Solicitation provision stating that under the solicitation's past performance evaluation factor the agency would evaluate the –offeror's actions under previously awarded contracts— created a latent ambiguity where in addition to the agency's intended meaning that only the offeror's corporate past performance would be considered, the solicitation was reasonably read by the protester as providing for the evaluation of the past performance of the proposed subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the work required. DECISION Singleton Enterprises protests the award of a contract to Chezcore, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-05P-06-SVC-3022, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for exterior masonry repair to a federal building in Battle Creek, Michigan. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals under the solicitation's past performance factor was unreasonable. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government based upon the evaluation factors of past performance and price. The solicitation specified that in determining which proposal represented the best value, the agency would consider past performance to be significantly more important than price. As relevant here, the solicitation required that proposals include certain past performance information. Specifically, the RFP included –Past Performance Reference Sheet[s]— to be completed by the offerors for each of their references. The RFP stated that –offerors cannot use the same reference/contact person more than once,— and that each offeror –must provide a minimum of three customer references for past performance evaluations,— although each offeror could submit as many as six references. RFP, Supp. Instructions to Offerors, at 3. The solicitation listed the type of information that the agency would consider in evaluating past performance, such as –[t]he offeror's overall quality of performance,— and specified that the past performance would be considered relevant if it met the following three listed criteria: 1) The contract was to perform brick and/or limestone repairs (replacing, patching, dismantling, repairing, tuckpointing, sealing, etc.) 2) Past contracts were completed no more than five years from the closing date of this solicitation. 3) Current contracts are [at] least 80% complete. RFP, Supp. Instructions to Offerors, at 3. The solicitation concluded here by admonishing offerors that the –failure of the offeror to provide a minimum of three relevant references that [met] the [three] criteria [for relevance], and/or the inability of the Government to complete a minimum of three reference checks, after making a reasonable effort to do so, [would] result in the offeror being rated as 'neutral' on past performance.— Id. at 3-4. The agency received nine proposals by the solicitation's closing date. Chezcore's proposal received a –very good— rating under the past performance factor at a total evaluated price of $1,278,592 and Singleton's lower-priced proposal received a –neutral— rating under the past performance factor.[1] Singleton's proposal included completed past performance reference sheets regarding two contracts that had been performed by Singleton and three contracts that had been performed by Singleton's proposed –major subcontractor.— The record reflects that the past performance information pertaining to Singleton's proposed subcontractor was not considered by the agency in evaluating Singleton's proposal under the past performance factor –because [it was] for a subcontractor . . . and not the named offeror.— Singleton's proposal thus –received a 'neutral' rating in terms of past performance, since [Singleton] did not provide a minimum of three relevant references.— [2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, at 4.