B-299817; B-299817.2, S4, Inc., August 23, 2007

B-299817; B-299817.2, S4, Inc., August 23, 2007 TITLE: B-299817; B-299817.2, S4, Inc., August 23, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299817; B-299817.2 DATE: August 23, 2007 *********************************************** B-299817; B-299817.2, S4, Inc., August 23, 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: S4, Inc. File: B-299817; B-299817.2 Date: August 23, 2007 David M. Pronchick, Esq., and Seth Cowell, Esq., BlueLaw LLP, for the protester. Daniel B. Abrahams, Esq., Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., and Pamela A. Reynolds, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., for Croop-LaFrance Inc., an intervenor. Maj. Jeffrey Branstetter, Maj. John G. Terra, and Bradley S. Adams, Esq., Department of the Air Force; and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is denied where agency evaluation of past performance, and ultimate selection of awardee's lower-priced proposal was reasonable, and consistent with stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protest is denied where agency properly proceeded with award notwithstanding absence of applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code from awardee's entries in the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) system because other information posted there confirmed that awardee represented itself to be small under applicable size standard. DECISION S4, Inc., a small business, protests the award of a contract to Croop-LaFrance Inc. by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8530-07-R-10248 for information technology desktop management services. S4 argues that the Air Force misevaluated the awardee's past performance, improperly conducted discussions only with the awardee, disregarded the basis for award stated in the RFP, and disregarded the awardee's failure to list the applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)[1] code in its proposal representations and certifications. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the RFP on December 13, 2006 as a competitive 8(a) set-aside procurement. The RFP referenced NAICS code 541513, which provides a size standard of $23.0 million. RFP at 1. The RFP described the services desired in a performance-based work statement (PBWS). The RFP specified that award would be based on a "technically acceptable-risk/past performance/price tradeoff," which the RFP explained as follows: For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between proposal risk, past performance and price. Proposal risk and past performance are of equal importance, and when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. RFP at 39. The RFP provided that the Air Force would use the proposal risk factor to evaluate "the risk associated with the Offeror's proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation, and includes an assessment of the potential for increased cost, disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance." RFP at 40. Risk was to be rated adjectivally as low, medium or high. Past performance was to be first reviewed for relevance, and then rated (in descending order) as high confidence, significant confidence, satisfactory confidence, unknown confidence, little confidence, or no confidence. RFP at 41-42. The evaluation of past performance was to assess the confidence in the Offeror's ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors' or teaming partners' involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror's demonstrated present and past work record.