TITLE:   Support Services, Inc., B-282407; B-282407.2, July 8, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-282407; B-282407.2
DATE:  July 8, 1999
**********************************************************************
Support Services, Inc., B-282407; B-282407.2, July 8, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Support Services, Inc.

File: B-282407; B-282407.2

Date: July 8, 1999

William T. Welch, Esq., and William B. Barton, Jr., Esq., Barton, Mountain &
Tolle, for the protester.

Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., Moore, Hennessy & Freeman, for DGR Associates,
Inc., an intervenor.

Peter Ries, Esq., and Richard G. Welsh, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, for the agency.

Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq.,
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
decision.

DIGEST

Protest against evaluation of protester's past performance/relevant
experience is denied where (1) notwithstanding statement in contemporaneous
evaluation record concerning number of references considered, record as a
whole indicates that all relevant references furnished by the protester were
considered, (2) agency reasonably evaluated awardee's experience with larger
housing maintenance contracts more favorably than protester's, and (3)
agency reasonably determined that protester's experience performing
interstate rest area maintenance work was not relevant, since contract to be
awarded was for housing maintenance and repair.

DECISION

Support Services, Inc. (SSI) protests the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command's award of a contract to DGR Associates, Inc., under request for
quotations (RFQ) No. N68950-99-Q-0183, for maintenance and repair of 240
military family housing

units at the Marine Corps Support Activity in Belton, Missouri. [1] SSI
challenges the evaluation of past performance/relevant experience and argues
that the award was based on a defective price/past performance tradeoff.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ provided for award to the responsible vendor whose conforming
submission was most advantageous to the government, price and past
performance/relevant experience considered. The RFQ stated that the agency
would "review information about the offerors' past performance within the
last five years on work that is similar to this solicitation in size, scope,
and complexity," and that "[m]ore recent and relevant experience may be
viewed more favorably." RFQ at 19. Vendors were to submit past performance
narratives and references for "three (3) to five (5) housing maintenance
projects within the last five years" that "demonstrate required capability
and experience to successfully perform the requirements of this
solicitation." RFQ at 19, 29. This information was to be submitted on a
"Reference Questionnaire" form (included in the RFQ) which included a
section designated for "government use," in which quality, timeliness, cost
control, customer satisfaction, and safety criteria were to be rated on a
scale of poor, fair, good, and excellent. (In the actual evaluation, the
contracting officer contacted the references and noted their ratings on the
form.) The solicitation further provided that "[p]rice [was to be]
considered relatively more important than past performance." RFQ at 19.

The agency received quotations from nine vendors, including SSI and DGR. SSI
submitted the low quote of $[deleted], while DGR submitted the second low
quote of $1,098,500.80. After performing a price/past performance analysis
of the three low quotes, the contracting officer determined that DGR‘s
was the most advantageous to the government based on the firm's more
extensive experience and superior past performance reference ratings (an
average rating of "good +" compared to SSI's average of "good").
Determination of Responsibility and Price Reasonableness, Mar. 22, 1999, at
3. [2] Specifically, the contracting officer determined that DGR
"demonstrated more experience in the number of references provided and the
number of housing units under each contract than provided by Support
Services," and noted that "DGR's references rated them higher than the
references rated Support Services." Id. Upon learning of the resulting award
to DGR, and after being debriefed by the agency, SSI filed this protest with
our Office.

SSI argues that the agency misevaluated past performance/relevant experience
and failed to give greater weight to price in the price/past performance
tradeoff as required by the RFQ.

In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we
examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable
and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes
and regulations. Environmental Affairs Management, Inc., B-277270, Sept. 23,
1997, 97-2 CPD para. 93 at 4. We find that the evaluation and price/past
performance tradeoff here were reasonable and consistent with the evaluation
criteria.

PAST PERFORMANCE/RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

SSI Housing Maintenance References

SSI argues that the evaluation improperly took into account only two of its
three submitted military family housing maintenance contract references,
both for the Saratoga Naval Housing Area. The protester contends that the
agency's failure to consider the firm's third reference, for a contract at
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, is demonstrated by the following statement in
the contracting officer's source selection decision:

Even though Support Services quoted a lower price for the base year and two
option years, it did not provide the required three to five housing
maintenance references. Support Services provided two housing maintenance
references--both for the Saratoga Naval Housing Area, a follow on contract.
. . . From the references provided, Support Services does not have the
experience requested in the RFQ or demonstrated by the other two low
quoters.

Determination of Responsibility and Price Reasonableness at 3. SSI concludes
from this statement that the agency improperly failed to consider the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard contract and therefore rejected the firm's past
performance as nonconforming to the solicitation requirements.

The Navy responds that SSI in fact was credited with the submission of three
military housing maintenance references, including that for the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard contract at issue here. The agency asserts that this is
evidenced by the fact that SSI's quote was considered in the best value
determination; the quotes of firms which did not provide the required number
of references were determined nonresponsive and received no further
consideration.

In support of its position, the agency has submitted a post-protest sworn
declaration from the contracting officer wherein she states that, although
she "incorrectly stated that SSI did not provide the required three to five
housing maintenance references," she nevertheless "considered all of SSI's
references," including the "Saratoga Naval Housing Area contract, awarded in
1991, the Saratoga Naval Housing Area follow-on, awarded in 1996, and the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard contract," at issue here. Declaration of
Contracting Officer, May 27, 1999, at 2. Specifically, according to the
contracting officer, she "did evaluate the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
reference . . . and documented [her] phone call to Portsmouth on the
‘Reference Questionnaire' submitted by SSI." Id. The contracting
officer explains that her statement that SSI did not provide the required
references merely reflected her view that, while the Saratoga Naval Housing
contract counted for purposes of the RFQ requirement for three references,
the second, follow-on Saratoga contract was "an extension of the first
project, and not a second different project that significantly broadened
SSI's experience." Id. According to the contracting officer, she "considered
the two references from Saratoga as essentially one since this reference had
the same point of contact and was at the same base for the same housing."
Id. at 3.

While we will accord more weight to contemporaneous documents in determining
whether an evaluation was reasonable, post-protest explanations that are
credible and consistent with the contemporaneous documentation will
generally be considered in our review. Jason Assocs. Corp., B-278689 et al.,
Mar. 2, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 67 at 6; Pickering Firm Inc., B-277396, Oct. 9,
1997, 97-2 CPD para. 99 at 4-5 n.1.

Here, the contracting officer's post-protest explanations are generally
consistent with the contemporaneous evaluation record and are sufficient to
support the conclusion that all three of the protester's submitted housing
maintenance references were considered, including that for the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard contract. It is undisputed by the protester that the
contemporaneous evaluation record confirms the contracting officer's
post-protest statement that she documented the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
reference ratings with notations on the respective reference questionnaire
submitted by the protester. SSI Proposal, Current Contracts, at 2. Further,
the contemporaneous evaluation record gives no indication that SSI's quote
was rejected for failure to provide at least three references (as were the
other quotes that failed to include the required references), but instead
indicates that the firm's quote was considered with the other acceptable
quotes in the best value determination. Consequently, while we agree that
the language in the contracting officer's source selection statement
suggests that the Portsmouth contract was not considered, since the record
shows that the contracting officer was well aware of the Portsmouth
reference when she made her source selection decision, we conclude that
SSI's quote was not rejected for failure to provide three references, and
that the Portsmouth reference was factored into the decision, as the
contracting officer declares in her statement in response to the protest.

SSI Interstate Rest Area Maintenance Contracts

SSI argues that the agency unreasonably refused to consider the firm's four
submitted interstate rest area maintenance and custodial contract references
because they were not housing maintenance contracts and not similar in size,
scope and complexity to the work required by the RFQ. SSI notes that the RFQ
stated that the agency would "review information about the offerors' past
performance within the last five years on work that is similar to this
solicitation in size, scope, and complexity," RFQ at 19, and concludes from
this that the RFQ did not limit the consideration of past performance to
housing maintenance contracts. Further, SSI contends that its four rest area
maintenance contracts, taken together, are at least as large and complex
as--and thus are comparable to--the requirement here, as indicated by both
the comparable total dollar value ($1,633,055 for the rest area maintenance
contracts, versus somewhat more than $1 million for the current
requirement), and the fact that the rest area maintenance contracts
allegedly included electrical, heat, air conditioning, plumbing, structural
repair, janitorial and grounds maintenance services, as well as operation of
two waste water treatment plants. Supplemental Protest at 19.

The evaluation in this area was reasonable. As indicated above, the RFQ
stated that offerors were to "provide past performance narratives for three
(3) to five (5) housing maintenance projects within the last five years that
demonstrate experience in the [h]ousing [m]aintenance aspects described in .
. . the solicitation." RFQ at 29 (emphasis added). This language clearly
indicates that the agency intended to review past performance on housing
maintenance contracts, and the RFQ statement cited by the protester is
entirely consistent with this language. Reading the provisions together, it
is clear that the work the agency considered "similar to this solicitation
in size, scope, and complexity" was work performed under housing maintenance
contracts. See Quality Elevator Co., Inc., B-276750, July 23, 1997, 97-2 CPD
para. 28 at 5 (disputes as to the meaning of a solicitation requirement shall be
resolved by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives
effect to all provisions of the solicitation).

We find that the agency reasonably concluded that the work under the
interstate rest area maintenance and custodial contracts is not comparable
to the work under the housing maintenance contract to be awarded here. As
noted by the agency, there is no indication that the interstate rest area
maintenance services included: (1) a number of units comparable to the 240
housing units under the RFQ here; (2) the full range of housing maintenance
services required here, including 24-hour emergency on-call service, change
of occupancy maintenance, refinishing of hardwood floors, appliance repair,
preventative maintenance of chimneys, furnace replacement, and maintenance
of street lights; and (3) the higher level of attention required to
coordinate routine and preventative maintenance with the residents of
occupied family housing--i.e., rest areas can be serviced anytime. Further,
even if the work under the contracts were similar, we think the agency
reasonably could conclude that experience on a number of smaller contracts
does not equate with the performance of a single, larger project such as the
one under under the RFQ here.

Number of Housing Units

SSI argues that the Navy improperly evaluated DGR's housing maintenance
experience--with larger-sized projects of between 1,067 and 2,359
units--more favorably than the protester's experience with smaller-sized
projects; according to the protester, its smaller projects were more
comparable to the project here, which involves only 240 units. This argument
is without merit. Simply, we think the agency reasonably could have more
confidence in the future performance of a firm, such as DGR, that has
successfully met the more demanding challenge of performing housing
maintenance under contracts significantly larger than the one to be awarded,
than in a firm that has only performed contracts similar in size.

PRICE/PAST PERFORMANCE TRADEOFF

SSI asserts that the agency improperly failed to evaluate price as
relatively more important than past performance/relevant experience, as
required by the RFQ. The protester bases its assertion on the statement in
the contracting officer's source selection decision that "[t]he two factors
used to evaluate the quotes are price and past performance/relevant
experience which are of equal importance." Determination of Responsibility
and Price Reasonableness at 3.

In response, the agency has submitted a post-protest sworn declaration from
the contracting officer stating that "[her] statement that price and past
performance were equal was an unintentional error in drafting the
Determination of Responsibility and Price Reasonableness," and that in fact
she "did consider price relatively more important than past performance when
making [her] best value determination." Declaration of Contracting Officer
at 2. The contracting officer explains that in making her tradeoff decision,
she determined that DGR had demonstrated experience (1) with larger housing
maintenance contracts than SSI in terms of total number of units, (2) at
more installations than SSI (three versus two), and (3) at a higher
performance rating level than SSI (receiving "good +" versus good ratings
overall from the contacted references). Id. at 3; Determination of
Responsibility and Price Reasonableness at 3; and SSI Proposal, Current
Contracts, at 2. The contracting officer states that she "considered the
[deleted] price differential [between SSI and DGR] to be worth the
additional experience and superior customer feedback provided by DGR."
Declaration of Contracting Officer at 3.

Where a solicitation identifies a selection criterion in addition to price,
the selection official retains discretion to select a higher-priced but also
technically higher rated submission, if doing so is in the government's best
interest and is consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation and
source selection scheme. See University of Kansas Med. Ctr., B-278400, Jan.
26, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 120 at 6 (in context of a negotiated procurement).
While the contemporaneous documentation here does not specifically discuss
the tradeoff that led to the selection of DGR and, indeed, misstated the
relative importance of price and past performance, the contracting officer's
post-protest explanation of the tradeoff is consistent with the price/past
performance weightings and supported by the record and we, therefore, view
it as simply filling in previously unrecorded details. See Pickering Firm
Inc., supra. Again, the record shows that the selecting official recognized
at the time that SSI did not have the experience demonstrated by DGR; the
record shows that DGR's past performance was significantly broader than
SSI's in terms of both number of housing maintenance contracts and greater
number of units within those projects, and that DGR's performance on these
projects was rated higher by its references than SSI's performance. Although
the RFQ provided that price was more important than past performance, these
discriminators provided a reasonable basis for the agency to conclude that
payment of the relatively small price premium associated with DGR's quote
was warranted in order to obtain the greatest possible assurance of
satisfactory performance. We conclude that the tradeoff was reasonable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

Notes

1. The procurement was conducted under the simplified procedures authorized
in Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 13.5 for the acquisition of
commercial items up to a value of $5,000,000. Notwithstanding the use of a
request for quotations, the record otherwise reflects the terminology of
negotiated procurements (for example, those submitting quotations are
referred to as offerors).

2. The contracting officer rejected six of the remaining seven higher-priced
quotes, primarily for failure to meet the RFQ requirement for three to five
housing maintenance narratives/references.