Choctaw Staffing Solutions

B-412152.3 Aug 24, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Choctaw Staffing Solutions, Inc., of Durant, Oklahoma, a small business, protests the award of a contract to 1st American Systems and Services, LLC (1A), of Falls Church, Virginia, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8052-15-R-0017, to provide services to carry out the Air Force family advocacy program (FAP) at locations in Europe. Choctaw argues that the Air Force misevaluated the proposals under the past performance factor, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Choctaw Staffing Solutions, Inc. File:  B-412152.3 Date:  August 24, 2016 Nathaniel R. Cox, and Sarah L. Beams, Choctaw Staffing Solutions, Inc., for the protester. Col. Matthew J. Mulbarger, and Jason R. Smith, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester’s past performance less favorably because it involved performance by predecessor company whose key employees would be involved in the protester’s performance is dismissed as untimely where solicitation expressly provided that performance by offeror itself would be viewed more favorably than performance by predecessor, and protester did not challenge those express terms of solicitation until after award. 2.  Protest that agency misevaluated past performance and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where contemporaneous record of evaluation demonstrated reasonable evaluation judgments and reasonable basis for selection of awardee’s lower-priced proposal.  DECISION Choctaw Staffing Solutions, Inc., of Durant, Oklahoma, a small business, protests the award of a contract to 1st American Systems and Services, LLC (1A), of Falls Church, Virginia, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8052‑15‑R-0017, to provide services to carry out the Air Force family advocacy program (FAP) at locations in Europe.  Choctaw argues that the Air Force misevaluated the proposals under the past performance factor, and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  We deny the protest. The Air Force issued the RFP on September 4, 2015, as a set-aside competition for participants in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) section 8(a) program.  RFP at 1, 16, 50-51.[1]  The solicitation anticipated the award of a single commercial item indefinite-quantity personal services[2] contract for a 5-year ordering period.  Id. at 1, 48-49, 51-52.  The RFP indicated that services consistent with an accompanying performance work statement (PWS) were required for Air Force bases in Italy, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Germany.  RFP appx. A at 1.  The contractor was required to supply staffing for 53 full-time equivalents, organized in six categories:  family advocacy intervention specialist, family advocacy treatment manager, family advocacy outreach manager, family advocacy nurse, family advocacy program assistant, and domestic abuse victim advocate.  RFP at 3‑8 & RFP appx. A at 1 (estimated staffing pattern).  Proposals were to be evaluated under three factors:  technical capability, past performance, and price.  Id. at 23.  The technical capability factor was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  For proposals that were rated technically acceptable, the agency would evaluate past performance qualitatively, and then select an awardee using a past performance/price tradeoff where past performance was to be significantly more important than price.  Id. at 23-24.  The RFP provided several provisions relating to the evaluation of past performance.  First, the RFP specified that “[r]elevancy for this solicitation is defined as behavioral health experience in Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) locations with contract value of at least $10 Million.”  RFP at 16.  Accordingly, the RFP went on to urge offerors to “include all of these aspects.”  Id.  Next, the RFP stated that “[c]ontracts performed by the company submitting the proposal are viewed more favorably than those performed by predecessor companies and/or key personnel.”  RFP at 28.  Finally, the RFP provided that offerors could submit a maximum of three past performance references, and that “[p]ast performance references for an individual task order count as a contract; multiple task orders under a contract count as separate contracts.”  Id. at 16.