Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc. (FA4419-19-R-A003)

B-417494.3 Aug 07, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Noble Supply and Logistics, Inc. (Noble), a small business of Rockland, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to CC Distributors, Inc. (CCD), the incumbent, of Corpus Christi, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA441919RA003, issued by the Department of the Air Force. The Air Force awarded the contract to support a contractor operated civil engineer supply store (COCESS) located on Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Noble argues that the agency's past performance evaluation was unreasonable. 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc. File:  B-417494.3 Date:  August 7, 2020 Gary J. Campbell, Esq., G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., and Lidiya Kurin, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Lawrence M. Anderson, Esq., and Frank Minogue, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonably based and not disparate. DECISION Noble Supply and Logistics, Inc. (Noble), a small business of Rockland, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to CC Distributors, Inc. (CCD), the incumbent, of Corpus Christi, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA441919RA003, issued by the Department of the Air Force.  The Air Force awarded the contract to support a contractor operated civil engineer supply store (COCESS) located on Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma.  Noble argues that the agency’s past performance evaluation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 26, 2019, the agency issued the RFP in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, acquisition of commercial items, and FAR part 15, contracting by negotiation.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP at 1, 109.  Under this effort, the contractor would provide a simplified method for customers to purchase quality materials, tools, and equipment to be used for work tasks, construction, recurring preventive maintenance, and repairs through the base “U-Fix-It Program.”[1]  Id. at 3.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 4-month base period and four 1-year option periods on a best-value tradeoff basis.  Id. at 15-16, 60, 109. Proposals were to be evaluated based on three factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  Id. at 109.  The technical and past performance factors when combined would be significantly more important than price.  Id. at 110.  As relevant here, past performance would be evaluated on the basis of recency, relevancy, and quality, and assigned a performance confidence rating.  Id. at 112.  The past performance factor required offerors to identify no more than five recent and relevant contracts and to send past performance questionnaires (PPQs) to contacts with firsthand experience with the offeror’s performance for each of the past performance references identified.  Id. at 93, 106-107.  Recent contracts were those performed within the three years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation.  Id. at 112.  Relevant past performance would involve performance of COCESS contracts similar in scope, magnitude (i.e., dollar value), and complexity to the requirements defined in the solicitation.  Id.  Each past performance reference would be assigned one of four ratings: (1) very relevant; (2) relevant; (3) somewhat relevant; or (4) not relevant.[2]  Id. at 112-113.  The quality of an offerors’ past performance would be used to assess the likelihood that an offeror would successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements here.  Id. at 113.  The agency would consider an offeror’s past performance references, PPQs received, and other data independently obtained by the government--which could include, but was not limited to, information in the past performance information retrieval system (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information system, or other databases.  Id. at 112.  Based on this information, the agency would assign one of five performance confidence ratings: (1) substantial confidence; (2) satisfactory confidence; (3) limited confidence; (4) no confidence; or (5) unknown confidence.[3]  Id.