B-298697, HoveCo, November 14, 2006

B-298697 Nov 14, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HoveCo protests the award of a contract to Porter Manufacturing Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8533-05-R-76816, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the design and production of a trailer-mounted fuel dispensing system. The protester takes issue with the agency's evaluation of its past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298697, HoveCo, November 14, 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: HoveCo File: B-298697 Date: November 14, 2006 Henry E. Steck, Esq., Harrison Steck, P.C., for the protester. Maj. 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 Protest arguing that proposal should have received performance confidence rating of unknown confidence rather than little confidence is denied where record clearly establishes that protester suffered no prejudice as a result of the little confidence rating. DECISION HoveCo protests the award of a contract to Porter Manufacturing Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8533-05-R-76816, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the design and production of a trailer-mounted fuel dispensing system. The protester takes issue with the agency's evaluation of its past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of a 5-year (basic year, plus four ordering periods) fixed-price, requirements contract. The solicitation advised offerors that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal conformed to all solicitation requirements and was found to represent the best value to the government. Best value was to be determined on the basis of a trade-off between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price. The solicitation provided for the assignment of performance confidence ratings to offerors based on their past performance. Six ratings were possible: high confidence, significant confidence, satisfactory confidence, unknown confidence, little confidence, and no confidence. RFP amend. 3, at 45. Of relevance to this protest, the RFP defined ratings of satisfactory, unknown, and little confidence as follows: Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems. Unknown Confidence: No performance record identifiable (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) and (iv). Little Confidence: Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Id. The RFP provided for a –relevancy determination— of each offeror's present and past performance in accordance with the following highly detailed criteria: Very Relevant: Present and/or past performance efforts that involved essentially the same magnitude of work and complexities that this solicitation requires and included the design and production (including remanufacturing and/or overhaul) of a mobile, trailer-mounted fuel dispensing system capable of delivering no less than 10 GPM [gallons per minute] through a standard service station type fuel dispensing nozzle, and such system has an automated fuel billing and metering capability. Relevant: Present and/or past performance efforts that involved much of the magnitude of work and complexities that this solicitation requires and included the production (including remanufacturing and/or overhaul) of a mobile fluid dispensing system capable of delivering no less than 10 GPM through a standard service station type nozzle, and such system has a fluid metering capability. Somewhat Relevant: Present and/or past performance efforts that involved some of the magnitude of work and complexities that this solicitation requires and included the production (including remanufacturing and/or overhaul) of a fluid dispensing system capable of delivering no less than 10 GPM through a standard dispensing nozzle, and such system has a metering capability. Not Relevant: Present/past performance efforts involved little or none of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Id. at 44. Three proposals were received by the May 15, 2006 closing date.[1] The agency conducted discussions with the offerors and requested final proposal revisions. After reviewing HoveCo's final past performance information, the performance confidence assessment group (PCAG) assigned the protester's proposal a performance confidence rating of little confidence.