Al-Shahba General Contracting Establishment (FA5706-20-R-0007)

B-418697 Jul 27, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Al-Shahba General Contracting Establishment (ASGENCO), of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE), protests the award of a contract to RTC Facilities Management Services, LLC, of Dubai, UAE, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA5706-20-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Air Force for custodial services at Al Dhafra Air Base, UAE. ASGENCO primarily argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Al-Shahba General Contracting Establishment File:  B-418697 Date:  July 27, 2020 Ahmed Jalaluddine Hamade, and Daygrace Salunga, Al-Shahba General Contracting Establishment, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Kyle Gilbertson, Esq., April Guevarra, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Christine Milne, 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 agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Al-Shahba General Contracting Establishment (ASGENCO), of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE), protests the award of a contract to RTC Facilities Management Services, LLC, of Dubai, UAE, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA5706-20-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Air Force for custodial services at Al Dhafra Air Base, UAE.  ASGENCO primarily argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on March 9, 2020, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to provide all management, tools, equipment, and labor necessary to provide custodial services at Al Dhafra Air Base for a 1-year base period and up to four 1-year option periods, with an additional 6-month extension option.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 3, RFQ at 3-7; 73.  The RFQ was issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13, as a competitive past performance tradeoff acquisition considering three factors:  past performance, technical, and price. Id. at 73.  When combined, the technical and past performance factors were significantly more important than price.  Id.  Award was to be made to the firm whose quotation conformed to all solicitation terms and conditions, received a past performance rating other than limited or no confidence[1] and an acceptable technical rating,[2] had a fair and reasonable price, and was registered in the Joint Contingency Contract System database prior to award.  Id.  The evaluation process would begin with a compliance review to verify conformance with the RFQ’s administrative requirements.  Id.  All conforming quotations would then be ranked by their total evaluated price and evaluated for past performance.  Id.  If the lowest-priced quotation was judged to have a substantial confidence performance rating, then that quotation represented the best value for the government and award to that vendor could have been made, pending a finding of technical acceptability.  Id.  If the lowest-priced quotation was not judged to have an overall substantial confidence performance rating, the evaluation would continue in ascending order by price until the quotation rated with substantial confidence was confirmed or until all quotations were evaluated.  Id. With respect to past performance, vendors were to submit information on no more than five recent contracts they considered most relevant in demonstrating the vendor’s ability to perform the proposed effort.  Id. at 69.   Each vendor’s past performance efforts were to be assessed for recency, relevancy, and performance quality.  Id. at 76.  At issue here, “relevant” was defined as performance of custodial services of similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities as this solicitation required.  Vendors were required to demonstrate performance of efforts involving requirements similar or greater in scope (a broad range of custodial services); magnitude (a historical average value of $1.2 million per year); and complexity (multiple facilities with different cleaning requirements, multiple locations, and ability to support fluctuating demand) as the effort described in the solicitation.  Id. The agency received four quotations on March 31.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 7.  After a compliance check, the quotations were ranked according to their overall quoted prices.  AR, exh. 12, Simplified Acquisition Decision at 2-6; COS at 7-9.  Turning to the past performance evaluation, the agency first evaluated ASGENCO’s lowest-priced quotation, assigning it a past performance rating of limited confidence.  Id.