C2G Ltd. Company

B-415938.2 Jun 26, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights C2G Ltd. Company, of Goose Creek, South Carolina, a small business, protests the award of a contract to ProLog, Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-17-R-CC04, issued by the United States Transportation Command (the agency), for gateway passenger support services at the Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), in Maryland. The protester contends that the agency misevaluated both firms' past performance, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of:  C2G Ltd. Company File:  B-415938.2 Date:  June 26, 2018 Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Scott F. Lane, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Major Ryan P. Payne, and Alexis J. Bernstein, 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 Protest that agency misevaluated protester's and awardee's past performance and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where evaluation reasonably rated both firms' past performance as satisfactory confidence, and tradeoff between past performance and price reasonably resulted in selection of awardee's lower-priced proposal as the best value.  DECISION C2G Ltd. Company, of Goose Creek, South Carolina, a small business, protests the award of a contract to ProLog, Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-17-R-CC04, issued by the United States Transportation Command (the agency), for gateway passenger support services at the Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), in Maryland.  The protester contends that the agency misevaluated both firms' past performance, and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Issued on August 31, 2017, the RFP sought proposals from service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB) to provide commercial passenger-related services at BWI airport for military service members arriving or departing the airport in support of the Defense Transportation System.  The contractor was required to provide operationally critical support services to the military for an estimated arrival and departure of 578 aircraft, 100,136 passengers, and 319,561 short tons of cargo annually.  The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated under three factors:  technical, price, and past performance.  Technical proposals were to be assessed on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, price proposals would be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness, and past performance would be evaluated on the basis of recency, relevance, and quality.  RFP at 41-42.  The RFP directed offerors to send out past performance questionnaires that would be returned directly to the agency.  Id. at 39.  It also instructed as follows: If a subcontractor will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including specific details on which requirements of the Performance Work Statement the subcontractor will be performing.  In lieu of the number of questionnaires identified in paragraph (a) above, the offeror shall submit one to two questionnaires for their most relevant contracts within the last three years and one to two questionnaires for each subcontractor performing major or critical aspects of the work. If more than two questionnaires are received from any one party, the Government will only evaluate the first two that are received. Id. at 40.[1] The RFP stated that the relevance of past performance would result in adjectival ratings of very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant.  Considering relevance and the reported performance on recent past performance, the agency would then assign confidence ratings of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, neutral confidence, limited confidence, or no confidence.  Id. at 42-43.  The RFP also advised offerors that "[p]ast performance of the prime offeror will be considered more highly in assigning the overall past performance confidence assessment than that of subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement."  Id.