B-299344, J. Womack Enterprises, Inc., April 4, 2007

B-299344 Apr 04, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights J. Womack Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of contracts to RCA Contracting, Inc. and MAPCO, Inc. by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8501-05-R-0008 for mechanical/electrical type construction projects at Robins Air Force Base (AFB), Georgia. Womack argues that the Air Force improperly evaluated its past performance, that the agency acted with bad faith due to race and gender bias, that the Air Force's evaluation of its past performance was tantamount to a determination of nonresponsibility, and that the award decision was improper. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299344, J. Womack Enterprises, Inc., April 4, 2007 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: J. Womack Enterprises, Inc. File: B-299344 Date: April 4, 2007 Robert E. Bergman, Esq., for the protester. Maj. Kevin J. Wilkinson and Capt. David M. Creed, 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 Protest that agency improperly considered adverse past performance information in evaluating the protester's proposal is denied where the agency's evaluation was based on a reasonable perception of the protester's inadequate prior performance. DECISION J. Womack Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of contracts to RCA Contracting, Inc. and MAPCO, Inc. by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8501-05-R-0008 for mechanical/electrical type construction projects at Robins Air Force Base (AFB), Georgia. Womack argues that the Air Force improperly evaluated its past performance, that the agency acted with bad faith due to race and gender bias, that the Air Force's evaluation of its past performance was tantamount to a determination of nonresponsibility, and that the award decision was improper. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the RFP on May 2, 2006, as a set-aside for historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small businesses, contemplating the award of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for mechanical and electrical type construction projects at Robins AFB, with a base period of 1-year plus four 1-year option periods.[2] The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the –best value— to the government and identified two evaluation factors: past performance and price. Past performance was identified as –significantly more important than price— for the purposes of a tradeoff in connection with the best value determination. RFP at 38. With respect to the past performance factor, the RFP provided that the Air Force would assess an offeror's ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort by evaluating the –offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs.— RFP at 38. Based on this assessment, the Air Force would assign each offeror an overall –confidence— rating of: high confidence, significant confidence, satisfactory confidence, unknown confidence, little confidence, or no confidence. RFP at 40. In order to evaluate past performance and assign a confidence rating, the RFP instructed offerors to provide –FACTS Sheets— containing information concerning their present and past performance history. RFP at 34. Specifically, offerors were required to provide –FACTS Sheets— on up to four contracts, either active or completed within the past 3 years, that the offeror had performed and which it considered to be relevant to the work under the RFP.[3] In evaluating offerors' performance information, the RFP identified the following degrees of relevance: very relevant, relevant, semi-relevant, and not relevant. RFP at 38. The RFP also required offerors to provide the same past performance information for –critical subcontractors— and indicated that the agency would consider the performance of these –critical subcontractors,— as well as performance information pertaining to key personnel.[4] The RFP further indicated that in evaluating past performance the agency would consider customer past performance questionnaires, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System records, as well as information –obtained from other sources— and –the source of the information— received.