BNUMBER: B-279168
DATE: May 12, 1998
TITLE: PCT Services, Inc, B-279168, May 12, 1998
**********************************************************************
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.
Matter of:PCT Services, Inc
File:B-279168
Date:May 12, 1998
Thomas E. Abernathy IV, Esq., Smith, Currie & Hancock, for the
protester.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Patrick F. Corbin, Esq., Department of
the Air Force, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging agency's past performance risk assessment is
denied where the protester's performance risk rating was reasonably
based on the agency's experience with the protester under prior
contracts and performance questionnaire responses from other
government sources, which reflected the protester's poor performance
on other relevant contracts.
DECISION
PCT Services, Inc. protests the award of three contracts to Riteway,
Inc. under requests for proposals (RFP) Nos. F41622-97-0030,
F41622-97-R-0032, and F41622-97-R-0036, issued by the Department of
the Air Force for commercial hospital aseptic management system (HAMS)
services at three Air Force Bases (AFB). PCT contends that the
agency's evaluation of its past performance risk was improper.
We deny the protest.
The RFPs, issued on November 18, 1997, provided for the award of
fixed-price contracts for a base period and four 1-year options.[1]
The RFPs stated that the awardee would be selected on a best value
basis considering technical, past performance and price factors; the
technical factor was considered most important, while past performance
and price were considered equal in importance. The RFPs required
offerors to submit present and past performance information for
relevant contracts performed within the past 2 years and advised that
the agency would conduct a risk assessment based on the offeror's past
performance, rating them on a scale of not applicable, high, moderate,
or low risk.[2] In assessing past performance risk, the RFPs stated
that the evaluators would review the present and past performance
information required by the RFPs, seek present and past performance
information through the use of simplified performance
questionnaires,[3] and use data independently obtained from other
government and commercial sources. Under the performance risk/price
tradeoff set forth in the RFPs, award would be made to the lowest
evaluated price, technically acceptable offeror if it received a low
performance risk rating, but award could be made to other than the
lowest priced offeror if that offeror received other than a low
performance risk rating.
By the December 9 closing date, the Air Force received several
proposals in response to each RFP. PCT was the lowest evaluated price
offeror under each solicitation, but it received a moderate
performance risk rating based upon the performance questionnaire
responses and the evaluators' own knowledge of PCT's prior
performance. PCT has five HAMS contracts with the Air Force, at
Altus, Columbus, Dover, Patrick, and Kirtland AFBs. In assessing
PCT's performance risk, the agency considered the responses received
from Altus, Columbus, Dover, and Patrick AFBs; and from Brooke Army
Medical Center (BAMC) and Fort Knox Army Hospital (both facilities
were listed in PCT's past performance proposals). Altus AFB, Dover
AFB, and Fort Knox Army Hospital each rated PCT's performance
satisfactory overall. While Columbus AFB reported PCT's performance
excellent in many areas, the firm's management performance was rated
marginal because of its failure to meet payroll, to furnish and
maintain the supplies necessary to perform, and failure to maintain a
certified executive housekeeper at Columbus AFB from 1995 through
1997. Patrick AFB rated the firm's performance unacceptable in
training, quality, and work scheduling; in the areas of management,
housekeeping, and the medical facility plan it rated the firm
marginal. At BAMC, PCT's performance was rated marginal in the areas
of management, quality, work scheduling, and infection control
requirements; other areas were rated satisfactory. The facility
managers at Patrick AFB and BAMC stated, that given what they know now
about PCT's performance, they definitely would not award to PCT if
they had a choice. The Columbus AFB facility manager stated that he
probably would not award to PCT again. In addition, the agency's
contracting office reported problems in negotiating contract changes
with PCT because PCT failed to submit timely and complete change
proposals.
PCT was informed, during discussions, that it was assigned a moderate
performance risk rating because of these reported deficiencies and the
firm was given an opportunity to submit a response. In its January
13, 1998 response, PCT questioned some of the assessments and provided
some additional information. For example, the protester questioned
the comment made by the Dover AFB facility manager--that he would
probably not award another contract to PCT--given his reported rating
that PCT's performance was satisfactory in all areas. As to its
performance at BAMC, PCT provided information regarding a recent
successful inspection performed by the Joint Commission for the
Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHCO) to refute the
marginal ratings it received from the facility manager at BAMC. The
agency analyzed PCT's response and concluded that the firm's
submission provided no basis to disregard the facility managers'
ratings. For example, the evaluators noted that JCAHCO inspections
are conducted over a 1 week period every 3 years and concluded that
the JCAHCO ratings did not necessarily represent PCT's daily
performance at BAMC. The evaluators did disregard some negative past
performance information after reviewing PCT's response. For instance,
the evaluators disregarded the Dover AFB facility manager's comment
that he would not make award to PCT again because it was not supported
by his overall satisfactory rating of PCT's performance. However,
since PCT did not rebut the major deficiencies identified in the
performance questionnaire responses from Columbus AFB, Patrick AFB and
BAMC, its performance risk rating remained unchanged.
The Riteway proposals were the next lowest-priced technically
acceptable proposals. The agency evaluated the performance
questionnaire responses submitted for the eight HAMS contracts Riteway
has with the Air Force and assigned a low performance risk rating,
given Riteway's reported overall performance. The contracting
officer, who was also the source selection official, reviewed the
evaluation findings and the performance information from the facility
managers and concluded that Riteway's proposals represented the best
value to the agency. His decision was based on his finding that
Riteway's past performance indicated that Riteway was more likely to
satisfactorily perform the required services as compared to PCT, whose
past performance history created doubt as to its ability to perform
the proposed services in a satisfactory manner. The contracts were
awarded to Riteway on January 21, 1998; this protest followed.
PCT protests that the agency's past performance risk evaluation was
flawed, arguing that the agency failed to evaluate its present
performance under three current contracts identified in PCT's past
performance proposals. By failing to evaluate its present performance
at Kirtland AFB, Altus AFB and BAMC, PCT claims, the agency violated
the allegedly express representations in the RFPs that the agency
would evaluate an offeror's performance under its past and present
contracts.
In reviewing an evaluation of an offeror's performance risk, we will
examine it to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the
stated evaluation factors, since the relative merit of competing
proposals is primarily a matter of agency discretion. Dragon Servs.,
Inc., B-255354, Feb. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 151 at 6. An agency's
evaluation of past performance may be based on its reasonable
perception of inadequate prior performance, even where the protester
disputes the agency's interpretation of the facts. Pannesma Co. Ltd.,
B-251688, Apr. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 333 at 6. Here, we have reviewed
the record in light of the protester's arguments and find that it
reasonably supports the agency's evaluation of PCT's performance risk.
First, the protester maintains that the agency failed to obtain
performance information from Patrick AFB regarding a custodial
contract at that base, or from Kirtland AFB or Fort Knox Army
Hospital regarding HAMS contracts at those locations, all of which
were listed in its proposals; thus, the evaluators allegedly did not
evaluate its proposals in accordance with the solicitation provision
which required offerors to submit information on contracts considered
relevant to demonstrate its ability to perform the proposed services.
The agency was not required to check all references listed in each
offeror's proposal. Questech, Inc.,
B-236028, Nov. 1, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 407 at 3. The record shows that
Kirtland AFB did not return the performance questionnaire that was
sent to all AFBs, including Kirtland, in February 1997; and on three
occasions, the contracting officer attempted to contact the facility
manager at Kirtland by telephone but was unsuccessful in doing so.
Thus, the agency did not ignore the Kirtland AFB reference; rather,
the reference simply did not respond to the questionnaire. The record
shows that of the five HAMS contracts PCT has with the Air Force, four
facility managers provided responses which were considered by the
agency, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that PCT's
performance risk rating would have improved based on the Kirtland AFB
reference.[4]
Next, PCT contends that the Air Force failed to evaluate PCT's past
performance in accordance with the RFPs' requirements and the
applicable regulations. The protester asserts that the agency should
have requested updated performance information after the December 9,
1997 receipt of proposals. Had it done so, the protester states, the
positive aspects of its present performance would have been reported,
resulting in a past performance rating of low risk and the selection
of PCT's proposals for award. The Air Force's position is that the
performance information obtained from early 1997 was reliable,
considering the facility managers' ongoing knowledge of, and
experience with, the contractors' performance.
The RFPs stated that offerors' present and past performance of
relevant contracts performed within the last 2 years would be
evaluated by the agency to assess past performance risk. Our review
of the evaluation documents show that the agency relied on performance
information obtained in the 1997 survey of contractor performance at
all AFBs. Since the RFPs specifically required the agency to evaluate
past performance within the last 2 years to make an appropriate
assessment, we find the agency's use of such data was consistent with
the stated evaluation scheme and reasonable. Nothing in the RFPs
required the agency to conduct a new survey, rather than rely on the
past performance information already in hand.
While the protester argues that updated performance information would
show that PCT's performance has improved, we do not think the agency's
reliance on the 1997 questionnaire responses--the most current
information available at the time of evaluation--was unreasonable.
Moreover, as noted above, despite being apprised of the reported
performance deficiencies during discussions, PCT did not demonstrate
that the facility managers' ratings were inaccurate or address any
actions taken to correct these reported deficiencies. PCT's response
essentially disagreed with the facility managers' judgment of its
performance. The agency based its performance risk rating on
unrebutted information showing a marginal management rating at
Columbus AFB, several marginal and unacceptable ratings at Patrick
AFB, several marginal ratings at BAMC, and the statements of two of
the facility managers that they definitely would not award to PCT if
given the choice. Thus, the record reasonably supports the agency's
decision that PCT's past performance posed a moderate performance
risk.[5] Accordingly, we have no basis to question the agency's
source selection decision, since the contracting officer reasonably
determined that, despite its lower prices, PCT's proposals did not
represent the best value to the agency under the RFPs' performance
risk/price tradeoff scheme.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The RFPs were issued to obtain HAMS services at MacDill, Hill, and
Luke AFBs; the Hill AFB and Luke AFB solicitations were issued as
total small business set-asides. The three RFPs have identical
provisions regarding the preparation of proposals, the evaluation of
proposals, and basis for award.
2. The definitions of the performance risk ratings were contained in
Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Appendix BB-305
(Jan. 15, 1995). A high risk rating means that "[s]ignificant doubt
exists, based on the offeror's performance record, that the offeror
can perform the proposed effort"; a moderate risk rating means that
"[s]ome doubt exists, based on the offeror's performance record, that
the offeror can perform the proposed effort"; a low risk rating means
that "[l]ittle doubt exists, based on the offeror's performance
record, that the offeror can perform the proposed effort"; and a not
applicable rating means that "[n]o significant performance record is
identifiable."
3. The performance questionnaires, which measure customer
satisfaction, are sent each year to AFBs where the HAMS services are
being provided; they address numerous areas of contractor performance
including, management, personnel, training, work scheduling, and
infection control requirements.
4. Regarding PCT's performance at Fort Knox Hospital, the evaluation
record contradicts the protester's allegation that this reference had
not been contacted. As indicated by the earlier discussion, the
responses received from the Fort Knox contracting officer rated PCT's
performance under its housekeeping services contract satisfactory. On
the other hand, the agency reports that it did not request
information from Patrick AFB regarding PCT's performance under its
custodial contract because PCT's performance under its HAMS contract
at Patrick AFB was considered more relevant than its performance under
the custodial contract at the AFB. The protester has provided no
basis for us to find the agency's decision in this regard
unreasonable. Overall, then, PCT's satisfactory performance on
relevant contracts at Altus and Fort Knox simply did not outweigh the
negative performance information from the other military facilities.
5. As to PCT's contention that the favorable JCAHCO inspection at BAMC
should have been considered, we believe the Air Force was reasonable
in concluding that JCAHCO ratings based on a 1 week performance
period may not be representative of the contractor's ongoing
performance. Those ratings thus do not provide a basis for our Office
to conclude that the major deficiencies identified in the performance
questionnaire responses were inaccurate and should not have been
relied on by the Air Force.