Chenega Federal Systems, LLC

B-417037.2 Sep 06, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chenega Federal Systems, LLC, a small business of Lorton, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Delaware Resource Group of Oklahoma, LLC (DRG), of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5215-17-R-0002, issued by the Air Force for aircrew training and security services. Chenega argues that the agency's evaluation of past performance was improper, that the agency conducted an unreasonable best-value tradeoff decision based on the flawed past performance evaluation, and that the agency failed to take the corrective action it promised in response to an earlier protest filed by Chenega. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Chenega Federal Systems, LLC File:  B-417037.2 Date:  September 6, 2019 Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., Martin Law Firm, PLLC; William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Danielle A. Runyan, Esq., Scott Van Schoyck, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the agency properly considered the dollar value of offerors’ past performance contracts when assessing relevance, and evaluated offerors consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Chenega Federal Systems, LLC, a small business of Lorton, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Delaware Resource Group of Oklahoma, LLC (DRG), of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5215-17-R-0002, issued by the Air Force for aircrew training and security services.  Chenega argues that the agency’s evaluation of past performance was improper, that the agency conducted an unreasonable best-value tradeoff decision based on the flawed past performance evaluation, and that the agency failed to take the corrective action it promised in response to an earlier protest filed by Chenega. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on February 9, 2018, pursuant to the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15, contemplated the award of a single fixed-price contract with a 1-year base period, three 1-year option periods, and two 1-year incentive option periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, at 1, 2-28, 85, 116.  The solicitation’s statement of work (SOW) required the contractor to provide all personnel and materials to perform aircrew training and site security management services at six air bases located in Alaska, Hawaii, South Korea, and Japan.  Id. at 136-137. The solicitation established that award would be made using a best-value tradeoff source selection process, considering four factors:  (1) technical submission; (2) small business subcontracting plan; (3) past performance confidence rating; and (4) price.  RFP at 116.  The technical submission and subcontracting plan factors were to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, with the tradeoff based on a consideration of past performance and price.[1]  Id. Regarding the past performance factor, the solicitation required the agency to evaluate the relevance and quality of offerors’ recent[2] past performance.  RFP at 118-119. The agency evaluated relevance by considering the degree to which an offeror’s past performance reference contract involved similar scope, complexities, and magnitude of effort as compared to the SOW.  Id.  Whether an offeror’s reference contract involved a similar scope and complexity depended on the degree to which the contract involved performance of five specific task areas identified in the solicitation.  Id. at 118.  The solicitation did not, however, specify how the agency would evaluate magnitude of effort.  The solicitation provided that the agency reserved the right to give greater consideration to contracts deemed more relevant to the SOW requirements.  Id.