BNUMBER:  B-274802.2 
DATE:  December 24, 1997
TITLE: Voices R Us, B-274802.2, December 24, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Voices R Us

File:     B-274802.2

Date:December 24, 1997

Hari P. Kunamneni for the protester.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Lawrence W. Kelly, Esq., Department of 
the Air Force, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Discussions in the area of past performance were adequate where agency 
identified the categories of concern with protester's prior 
performance and provided an opportunity to address those concerns.

DECISION

Voices R Us (VRU) protests the award of a contract to Western 
Environmental Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F33659-96-R-7502, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the 
installation of an environmental monitoring system.  VRU maintains 
that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions, and that 
its ranking under the solicitation's past performance criterion would 
have been better had it had an opportunity to respond to the agency's 
concerns.

We deny the protest.

The RFP sought fixed-priced offers to install an environmental 
monitoring system at the agency's metrology laboratories in Heath, 
Ohio.  Firms were advised that proposals would be evaluated for 
compliance with the RFP's technical specifications and would be 
assigned a performance risk rating based on the agency's assessment of 
the offerors' past performance on similar contracts.  As part of their 
proposals, firms were to provide a minimum of three references for 
similar prior contracts.

The agency received several offers in response to the RFP.  VRU's 
proposal was found to be incomplete because the firm had not included 
information relating to prior contracts.  After being contacted 
several times by the agency concerning the matter, VRU submitted 
references relating to six earlier contracts.  The agency reviewed the 
submitted references and, after contacting each one, determined that 
five were for contracts that were not sufficiently similar to the 
requirement being solicited; these were contracts for computer 
configuration and installation requirements as opposed to the 
installation of test or monitoring equipment.  The agency found VRU's 
remaining reference, a Department of the Navy contract for the 
installation of computer link-ups for test stands and other 
measurement equipment, relevant.

After contacting the Navy and obtaining a written review of VRU's 
performance on the prior contract, the agency evaluators assigned a 
high risk rating to VRU's proposal.  The Navy's written review 
provided that VRU's performance had been deficient in numerous 
respects--including the areas of timely performance, adequate 
communication between the contractor and agency personnel, cost 
control, compliance with contract terms (such as agreed-upon labor 
rates and the provision of adequate staffing)--and that the protester 
overall lacked business experience.  The Navy concluded by describing 
VRU's performance as "a nightmare."

The agency sent VRU a discussion letter stating that its proposal had 
been found deficient under the past performance criterion in the areas 
of quality, delivery of goods and services, and management of 
projects.  The letter went on to state that the agency's past 
performance review encompassed consideration of the offeror's record 
of conforming to purchase descriptions and contract schedules, good 
workmanship and commitment to customer satisfaction, and reasonable 
and cooperative behavior during contract performance.  VRU did not 
respond to the agency's discussion letter.

After this round of discussions, the agency (in response to an 
unrelated bid protest to our Office) amended the RFP and solicited 
best and final offers.  The Air Force provided VRU another opportunity 
to respond to its concerns regarding its past performance.  In this 
second letter the agency was still more specific.  The Air Force noted 
that VRU's negative past performance rating was based on its 
performance of the Navy contract and went on to state that the 
agency's review showed problems in the areas of quality of 
workmanship, management control, timely completion of contract 
schedules, system reliability, and ease of use.

VRU chose to respond to the agency's letter during this round of 
discussions, providing an explanation of its performance during the 
Navy contract.  After reviewing the protester's response, the agency 
concluded that VRU's proposal still merited a high risk rating in the 
past performance area in light of the number and severity of the 
firm's performance problems on the prior Navy contract.  Thereafter, 
the agency made award to Western Environmental.

VRU maintains that the agency did not engage in adequate discussions.  
According to the protester, the agency failed to advise it that there 
was a concern relating to the fact that VRU is a "one-man" company 
that might not have the capability to complete the requirement, that 
the agency was concerned with the amount of environmental monitoring 
contract experience the firm had, and that there had been problems 
with performing the prior Navy contract to the satisfaction of the 
user agency and in accordance with its terms.  VRU states that it was 
advised of these concerns for the first time during its debriefing and 
maintains that it would have received a better rating had it been 
afforded an opportunity to discuss these matters with the agency.

In conducting adequate discussions in the past performance area, 
agencies are not required to provide offerors with verbatim comments 
regarding all past performance surveys received; rather, agencies are 
required to impart sufficient information to afford the offeror a fair 
and reasonable opportunity to respond to the problems identified.  
Pacific Architects & Eng'rs, Inc., B-274405.2, B-274405.3, Dec. 18, 
1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  42 at 4.  An agency discharges its obligation where 
it simply identifies categories of past performance problems that 
relate to the specific problems found in the past performance surveys.  
Id. at 4-5.  

The Air Force discharged its obligation to engage in meaningful 
discussions with VRU.  As noted, the agency sent VRU two separate 
discussion letters (to one of which the firm chose not to respond) 
that collectively identified virtually all categories where the firm's 
past performance on the prior Navy contract was considered deficient, 
including quality of workmanship, management control, timely 
completion of contract schedules, system reliability and ease of use, 
and customer satisfaction.  The letters also made clear that the 
remainder of VRU's contracts were not considered relevant because they 
were not sufficiently similar to the environmental monitoring system 
being procured; in making this point, the agency clearly alerted VRU 
to its concern over the amount of environmental monitoring contract 
experience the firm had.

VRU also has not submitted any evidence during the course of the 
protest in an effort to show that the agency's concerns were 
unfounded; in fact, VRU opted not to submit any substantive comments 
in response to the agency report.  Under these circumstances, and in 
light of the level of detail included in the agency's discussion 
letters, there is no basis to question the adequacy of discussions in 
this case.  Moreover, VRU's reported poor performance on the Navy 
contract provided a reasonable basis for the agency's assigning a high 
risk rating to the firm's proposal in the past performance area.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of  the United States