BNUMBER:  B-274162
DATE:  November 25, 1996
TITLE:  SEAIR Transport Services, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:SEAIR Transport Services, Inc.

File:     B-274162

Date:November 25, 1996

T. J. Coulter for the protester.
Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., and Philip M. Dearborn, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & 
Pargament, for Akima Corporation, an intervenor.
Kim N. Haris, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Evaluation of protester's past performance was reasonable--and 
adequately took into account recency and seriousness of 
deficiencies--where it was based on performance ratings from 
offeror-furnished prior contract references.

DECISION

SEAIR Transport Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Akima Corporation for the operation, maintenance, and protection of a 
government-owned petroleum terminal at San Pedro, California under 
request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO600-96-R-0086, issued by the 
Defense Fuel Supply Center, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).

We deny the protest.

The contract was to be awarded to the offeror whose proposal met the 
minimum requirements set forth in the solicitation and provided the 
best value combination of past performance (more important) and price.  
With respect to past performance, each offeror was required to provide 
specified information, including a reference, for each of its three 
most recent contracts that involved work similar to that covered by 
the RFP.  Upon receiving the initial proposals, DLA sent each of the 
references a past performance survey to complete.  The survey 
consisted of 20 questions, the first 12 of which called for the 
respondent to rate the offeror's performance unsatisfactory, 
satisfactory or good, and the last 8 of which required a yes or no 
answer.  DLA then assigned each answer a score and, using a 
mathematical formula, developed a ranking for each proposal.  

Akima's best and final offer (BAFO) was ranked first (out of 10 
received) for past performance and second for price ($93,787 per 
month).  SEAIR's BAFO was ranked last for past performance, but first 
for price ($92,470 per month).  The agency performed a best value 
analysis, determined that Akima's proposal represented the best value 
to the government, and awarded a contract to Akima.  

SEAIR challenges the past performance evaluation, and thus the 
propriety of the award, on the basis that the agency improperly failed 
to consider the recency and seriousness of the performance 
deficiencies which underlie the ratings provided by its references.

SEAIR's argument is without merit.  First, as indicated, offerors were 
required to furnish references and information for their three most 
recent similar contracts.  The contracts referenced by SEAIR were 
performed in 1995 and 1996.   Since SEAIR provided the specific 
contract references and since they all involved relatively recent 
contracts, we see no reason why these contracts would be inappropriate 
to form the basis for a reasonable past performance rating.  

Second, DLA's evaluation did take into account the seriousness of the 
performance deficiencies.  As explained, offerors' final past 
performance ratings were derived directly from the ratings submitted 
by the offerors' own prior contract references; seriously deficient 
performance presumably would lead the reference to rate the offeror's 
performance unsatisfactory under the relevant survey response, while 
less serious deficiencies would not.  While under this methodology DLA 
did not specifically consider each deficiency for seriousness, the 
references' ratings, by their nature, did take seriousness into 
account, and the agency then essentially relied upon the references' 
judgments in this regard.  There is nothing objectionable in this 
evaluation approach; indeed, it is essentially the same approach 
agencies commonly use in evaluating technical proposals when the 
source selection official relies on evaluators' scoring in ranking 
proposals and making the award decision.  See, e.g., PCL/American 
Bridge, B-254511.2, Feb. 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  142.[1]  

In any case, it is clear from the record that the contracting officer 
was fully aware of the problems under SEAIR's prior contracts, and 
considered some of them--such as safety violations and financial 
problems which resulted in subcontractors suspending services in 
certain cases--to be serious.  We also note that SEAIR was given the 
opportunity to review and respond to the past performance information. 
(SEAIR's responses did not change the agency's evaluation.)  

SEAIR also challenges the award on the basis that the evaluation of 
Akima's past performance was unreasonable.  As the agency explained in 
its report, however, Management Engineering Associated, Inc., not 
SEAIR, would be in line for award if we sustained this ground of 
protest and upset Akima's award.  SEAIR therefore is not an interested 
party to challenge the evaluation of Akima's past performance.  See 
Cyber Digital, Inc., B-270107, Jan. 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  20.[2]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The solicitation reserved to the government the right to consider 
past performance information that it obtained through means other than 
the references provided by the offerors.  SEAIR complains that the 
contracting officer considered additional information in her files 
regarding SEAIR's past performance on contracts that SEAIR did not 
perform.  The agency disputes this, asserting that the information 
considered had been furnished by contract references SEAIR had 
previously provided in connection with a few procurements.   This 
matter is irrelevant in any case since SEAIR's past performance rating 
would have remained the lowest even had this additional information 
not been considered.

2. In supplemental comments filed in our Office on October 16, SEAIR 
argued for the first time that DLA acted in bad faith in connection 
with an earlier procurement (in Norwalk, Connecticut).  This argument 
is untimely.  Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. 
39043 (1996) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)).  To the extent 
the argument is intended to relate to the current protest, agency 
actions in connection with other procurement are irrelevant since each 
procurement stands on its own.  CardioMetrix, B-270777, Mar. 27, 1996, 
96-1 CPD  para.  168.