Ryan P. Slaughter

B-411168 Jun 04, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ryan P. Slaughter protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4418-14-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for grounds maintenance services. The protester contends that its exclusion from the competitive range was the result of an improper evaluation. We sustain the protest. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Ryan P. Slaughter File:  B-411168 Date:  June 4, 2015 Ryan P. Slaughter, the protester. Michael G. McCormack, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency improperly eliminated protester’s proposal from the competitive range where the agency established its competitive range without considering prices and improperly excluded the protester’s proposal from the competition solely on the basis of its unknown confidence rating. DECISION Ryan P. Slaughter[1] protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4418-14-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for grounds maintenance services.  The protester contends that its exclusion from the competitive range was the result of an improper evaluation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a commercial item Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business set‑aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for grounds maintenance services at Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina for an eight-month base period and four option years.  The solicitation sought various grounds maintenance services, including maintaining the grounds of the airfields (Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) programs), powerlines/electrical right of way (tree pruning), and surface drainage/ditch maintenance, among other things.  RFP at 188.  The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on best-value basis considering past performance and price, and that past performance was significantly more important than price.  Id. at 190.  The solicitation stated that the agency would first rank proposals from lowest to highest in total price.  Id. at 191.  The agency would then evaluate the past performance of the lowest-priced proposal.  Id. at 192.  If the lowest-priced proposal received a substantial confidence past performance rating, then award would be made to that offeror as the best value to the government.  Id.  Otherwise, the past performance assessment would continue, beginning with the next lowest-priced proposal, until an offeror with a substantial confidence rating was identified or until all offerors were evaluated.  Id.  At the conclusion of the past performance assessment, the solicitation advised that the selection authority would “make an integrated assessment best value award decision.”[2]  Id. With regard to past performance, offerors were required to submit information pertaining to no more than five contracts performed within the last five years.  Id. at 188.  The agency would evaluate this information (and information received from other sources) to assess the recency and relevancy of the contracts.[3]  Offerors were informed that the agency’s past performance evaluation would assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements, and assign an overall rating of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence.  As relevant here, the unknown confidence rating was for those firms that had either no recent/relevant past performance history, or a record that is “so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.”  Id. at 191.