B-310136, Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc., November 26, 2007

B-310136 Nov 26, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Ferguson Management Company South under request for proposals (RFP) No.?AG024B-S-07-0009, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest Service, for wildland fire-fighting crews. Firestorm challenges the technical capability and past performance evaluations. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310136, Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc., November 26, 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: Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc. File: B-310136 Date: November 26, 2007 John Lukjanowicz, Esq., for the protester. Heather M. Self, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Evaluation of awardee's past performance was reasonable, notwithstanding protester's identification of alleged negative information concerning awardee, where agency did not have personal knowledge of some of the information, and fully considered information of which it was aware. DECISION Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Ferguson Management Company South under request for proposals (RFP) No. AG024B-S-07-0009, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest Service, for wildland fire-fighting crews. Firestorm challenges the technical capability and past performance evaluations.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP, a small business set-aside, sought proposals for the services of 20-person fire-fighting crews at sites within specified distances of 6 national forests (10 contract line items (CLIN)). Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of four factors--past performance, technical capabilities, training/safety, and price. Past performance was to be evaluated on the basis of quality of services, customer satisfaction, timeliness of performance, trends in performance, and business relationships. Under this factor, the evaluators could consider proposal information, various past performance databases, and their own personal experience and knowledge. The non-price factors were of approximately equal weight and, combined, were more important than price. Award was to be made to multiple offerors on a –best value— basis. This protest concerns the award of CLIN 19b, for services within 100 miles of the Shasta-TrinityNational Forest. Eight firms, including Firestorm and Ferguson, submitted proposals for CLIN 19b. After an initial review, both firms' proposals (the only ones relevant here) were included in the competitive range. Following discussions and submission of final proposal revisions, the technical evaluation board's (TEB) final consensus evaluation ratings for the two proposals were as follows: Ferguson Firestorm Past Performance Acceptable Acceptable Technical Capability Exceptional Acceptable Training/Safety Acceptable Acceptable Overall Acceptable Acceptable Price $943,500 $975,420 The TEB recommended award to Firestorm, but the contracting officer determined that such an award was not justifiable in light of Firestorm's higher price, and thus recommended award to Ferguson.[2] The source selection authority (SSA) adopted the contracting officer's recommendation and made award to Ferguson. Following a debriefing, Firestorm filed this protest.[3] PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Ferguson's Proposal Firestorm asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Ferguson's past performance as acceptable, even though the firm had experienced several noncompliance issues under prior contracts, and one of its fire crews had deployed fire shelters during the 2004 Tool Box fire, which the protester claims is an –extraordinary event.— Noting that its own proposal reflected no noncompliance issues, Firestorm asserts that its rating should have been higher than Ferguson's. The evaluation of proposals, including past performance, is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency, which our Office will review only to ensure that the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. United Def. LP, B'286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 75 at 10'11; Sterling Servs., Inc., B-286326, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 208 at 2-3. The past performance evaluation was unobjectionable. As instructed by RFP sect.