Cantu Services, Inc. (W9124J-21-R-0027)

B-421440 May 10, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cantu Services, Inc., a small business of Burkburnett, Texas, protests the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command's decision to exclude Cantu from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J-21-R-0027. The Army issued the solicitation for full food services for dining facilities at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The protester contends that the agency's past performance evaluation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Cantu Services, Inc. File: B-421440 Date: May 10, 2023 John C. Dulske, Esq. and Alyssa Isenberg, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, for the protester. Captain Dmitrius R. McGruder and Major Weston E. Borkenhagen, Department of the Army, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated 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 Cantu Services, Inc., a small business of Burkburnett, Texas, protests the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command’s decision to exclude Cantu from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J-21-R-0027. The Army issued the solicitation for full food services for dining facilities at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The protester contends that the agency’s past performance evaluation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 25, 2022, the Army issued the solicitation under the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, using the negotiated procurement policies and procedures established under FAR part 15, seeking proposals to provide full food services for designated dining facilities at Fort Huachuca in Arizona. AR, Tab 3, RFP[1] at 78. The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract with a 5‑year ordering period. Id. at 79. The RFP established that award would be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis, considering the following evaluation factors: technical capability, past performance, and price. Id. at 74. As relevant here, the agency was to evaluate proposals under the past performance factor by considering each offeror’s record of past performance to determine whether the offeror would successfully perform the required effort. Id. at 75‑76. The RFP explicitly cautioned offerors that the agency could consider past performance information obtained from sources other than the offeror’s proposal. Id. at 75. The RFP stated that the agency would consider recent and relevant past performance projects under the following areas of evaluation: quality, schedule, management, small business subcontracting, and regulatory compliance. Id. The RFP considered past performance recent if it was performed within 3 years of the issuance of the solicitation. Id. The agency was to evaluate a project’s relevance by determining how similar it was in “nature of work, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured with this solicitation.” Id. at 76. The RFP explained that the agency would evaluate the relevance of individual contracts and should specifically consider which aspects of an offeror’s contract history would provide “the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy” the current contract requirements. Id. The RFP provided that the agency would assign each offeror’s past performance an adjectival rating of acceptable or unacceptable. Id. at 75‑76. The solicitation defined an unacceptable pass performance rating as “[b]ased on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.” Id. at 76. As relevant here, the RFP required that, after the initial evaluation of timely proposals, the agency establish a competitive range of proposals evaluated as acceptable before entering into discussions. Id. at 73. On or before the May 13, 2022, closing date for receipt of proposals, the Army received proposals from ten offerors, including Cantu. AR, Tab 12, Competitive Range Determination at 1; RFP at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. During its initial evaluation of proposals, the agency evaluated Cantu’s past performance as unacceptable.