Choctaw Staffing Solutions

B-413434 Oct 24, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Choctaw Staffing Solutions (CSS), of Durant, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to ADC Management Services, Inc. (ADC), of Lakewood, Colorado, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8052-15-R-0020 in support of the agency's domestic abuse victim advocate program. CSS challenges the evaluation of its own past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Choctaw Staffing Solutions File:  B-413434 Date:  October 24, 2016 Nathaniel Cox, Choctaw Staffing Solutions, for the protester. Antonio R. Franco, Esq., and Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for ADC Management Services, Inc., the intervenor. Christopher S. Cole, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION Choctaw Staffing Solutions (CSS), of Durant, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to ADC Management Services, Inc. (ADC), of Lakewood, Colorado, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8052-15-R-0020 in support of the agency’s domestic abuse victim advocate program.  CSS challenges the evaluation of its own past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 17, 2015, sought proposals from participants in the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program to provide support to the agency’s Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate program at various Military Treatment Facilities based in the continental United States.  Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3.  The contract was to be awarded to the responsible offeror whose offer was most advantageous to the government, considering price, technical capability and past performance.  RFP, Amendment 0002, at 11.  Technical capability was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and past performance was to be evaluated and assigned one of the following performance confidence ratings:  substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence.  Id. at 13-15.  Past performance was to be “the significantly more important factor,” and the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 11. Under the past performance factor, the agency was to evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant work record to assess its confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed.  Id. at 14.  Recent past performance was defined as one years’ performance occurring within three years from the date of issuance of the solicitation.  Id. at 16.  The RFP defined relevant as behavioral health experience across multiple geographic locations, with each relevancy rating corresponding to a specified metric of full-time equivalent employees (FTE) and sites.  For example, somewhat relevant was defined as “[p]resent/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. This would consist of references with at least 10 sites and at least 10 FTEs.”  Id. at 14.  Relevant past performance was defined as “Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires; this would consist of references with:  a. At least 20 sites and at least 20 FTEs and b. Geographic dispersion of sites.”  Id. The RFP included the following admonition: In its evaluation, the Government may also take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies and key personnel who have relevant experience.  Contracts performed by the company submitting the proposal are viewed more favorably than those performed by predecessor companies and/or key personnel.  More relevant past performance may be weighed more heavily than less relevant past performance.  More recent past performance may be weighed more heavily than less recent past performance. Id. at 16. Proposals were received from eight offerors, including CSS and ADC.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 8, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 5.  The relevant evaluation results are as follows:   ADC CSS Technical Capability Acceptable Acceptable Past Performance Confidence Rating Substantial Satisfactory Price $18,146,600 $16,571,684 Id. CSS’ past performance confidence rating was based on an assessment of three references, two CSS performed as a subcontractor and the third performed by an affiliated company.  Id.