TITLE:   Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-282887, August 31, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-282887
DATE:  August 31, 1999
**********************************************************************
Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-282887, August 31, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Olympus Building Services, Inc.

File: B-282887

Date: August 31, 1999

Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for the
protester.

Brian L. Howell, Esq., Naval Supply Systems Command, 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 of solicitation provision indicating that past performance
evaluation will consider only corporate past performance and not past
performance of key personnel is denied; protester has not shown this
evaluation scheme to be unreasonable or inconsistent with applicable
regulation.

DECISION

Olympus Building Services, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals
(RFP) No. N00600-99-R-1335, issued by the Department of the Navy for
janitorial services at various buildings in the Department of Agriculture
headquarters complex in Washington, D.C. Olympus argues that the
solicitation is defective because the past performance evaluation factor is
limited to the past performance of the corporate offeror and excludes
consideration of the past performance of proposed key personnel.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-priced,
indefinite-delivery/indefinite- quantity contract for a base year, with four
1-year options and provides for award on a best-value basis, with technical
merit significantly more important than price. RFP sect.sect. F.2, L.2, M.3. The
technical evaluation factors and subfactors are listed in descending order
of importance as:

1. Management Approach

1.1 Management Structure and Organization

1.2 Key Personnel [1]

1.3 Staffing

2. Quality Control

3. Past Performance

4. Technical Understanding, Approach, and Management

  1. Janitorial Services

4.2 Additional Services

RFP sect. M.1.

To assist in the past performance evaluation, the RFP, in part, specifically
instructs the offeror to furnish:

relevant experience and past performance information (limited to 5
contracts) describing its directly related or similar Federal, State and
local Government, and private contracts and subcontracts it has held within
the last 5 years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in progress
which are of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to that which is
detailed in the RFP.

RFP sect. L.7, Proposal Vol. II, sect. I (a), at L-7, L-8.

Before proposals were due, Olympus filed an agency-level protest arguing
that the solicitation is defective because the past performance evaluation
factor could be applied in a manner that restricts competition, thereby
violating applicable statute and regulation. [2] Thereafter, the agency
issued amendment No. 0004 to clarify, among other things, how past
performance will be evaluated, stating explicitly that past performance of
key personnel will not be considered. [3]

In its subsequent protest to our Office, Olympus challenges the past
performance evaluation factor as improperly restrictive of competition since
it allegedly disadvantages newly formed companies such as itself, despite
extensive prior "team" experience, by limiting consideration to the
corporate experience of the offeror itself. Protester's Comments at 8. The
protester maintains that it is entitled to receive full evaluation credit
under the past performance factor because its president and key "team"
employees have worked together on similar janitorial services contracts
(although for a different firm). In the protester's view, the Navy has
failed to provide any rationale for the solicitation's restrictive
evaluation scheme. Id.

at 2-4; Protest at 7-9.

Agency acquisition officials have broad discretion in the selecting
evaluation factors that will be used in an acquisition, and we will not
object to the use of particular evaluation factors or an evaluation scheme
so long as the factors used reasonably relate to the agency's needs in
choosing a contractor that will best serve the government's interests.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.15.304; Micromass, Inc., B-278869,
Mar. 24, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 93 at 3; Leon D. DeMatteis Constr. Corp.,
B-276877, July 30, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 36 at 3-4. As discussed below, we find
the agency's evaluation approach under the past performance factor within
the discretion afforded contracting officials.

First, we reject as unfounded the protester's contention that the agency's
exclusion of key personnel experience from the past performance assessment
restricts competition. The solicitation here, consistent with FAR
sect.15.305(a)(2)(iv), provides that offerors lacking relevant past performance
history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
While the protester would apparently prefer to receive a rating based on the
quality of its key personnel's past performance rather than to receive a
neutral rating due to a lack of corporate past performance, the fact remains
that the impact of the contested provision is only the difference between
those two ratings. We see no reasonable way that the provision can be said
to restrict competition.

Next, the protester argues that failure to consider the past performance of
key personnel is inconsistent with FAR sect.15.305(a)(2)(iii), which provides
that contracting agencies "should take into account past performance
information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant
experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of
the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant
acquisition." Although the cited provision states that agencies "should"
take into account "relevant" key personnel past performance information, we
read the provision to permit an agency, as the Navy effectively did here, to
decide that this information is not relevant. Here, the Navy reports that
evaluating corporate past performance, without consideration of proposed key
personnel's past performance, reflects the agency's legitimate interest in
the performance history of the corporate entity, which the agency believes
is indicative of the entity's future performance. The agency points out that
it will be contracting with a company rather than with a team of employees
or key personnel, who, as a practical matter, may not stay for the duration
of the contract. Agency's Response to Protester's Comments at 2-3.

While Olympus disagrees with this explanation, we view it as reasonable and
consistent with FAR sect.15.305(a)(2)(iii). We note in this regard that,
although our Office has recognized that an agency properly may consider the
experience of supervisory personnel in evaluating the experience of a new
business, see Technical Resources, Inc., B-253506, Sept. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD
para. 176 at 5, there is no legal requirement that an agency attribute employee
experience to the contractor. Hard Bodies, Inc., B-279543, June 23, 1998,
98-1 CPD para. 172 at 4. We conclude that the agency acted within its discretion
in determining that key personnel's past performance would not be considered
as part of the past performance evaluation. [4]

The protest is denied. [5]

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Regarding the evaluation of key personnel, the RFP requires the
submission of resumes--for all government-designated key personnel positions
and any other positions designated by the offeror as key personnel
positions--to establish that all key personnel proposed meet or exceed the
personnel qualifications set forth in the solicitation. RFP sect. L.7, Proposal
Vol. I, sect. I, at L-6.

2. Olympus asserted that the past performance evaluation factor was
susceptible of two interpretations--that the Navy would award evaluation
credit either based solely on an offeror's corporate experience or based on
both corporate experience and the relevant "team" experience of key
employees. Agency Report, Tab G, Agency Protest; Agency Report, Tab H,
Supplemental Information, May 24, 1999.

3. As modified by amendment No. 0004, Section M.2 of the RFP provides in
relevant part:

(b) The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror's past
performance. . . . The assessment of the offeror's past performance will be
used to evaluate the relative capability of the offeror and other
competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. . . .  Past
performance of "key personnel", if any, will not be considered.

4. The protester further argues that the evaluation scheme deviates from
Department of Defense guidelines concerning the collection and use of past
performance information. Protester's Additional Comments at 2-3. Those
internal guidelines were not a part of the solicitation, and the alleged
failure to comply with them therefore is a matter of consideration within
the agency itself, rather than through the bid protest process. See Litton
Sys., Inc., B-239123, Aug. 7, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 114 at 8 n.7.

5. Olympus also protests that a discrepancy exists between the square
footage listed in the RFP and the actual square footage uncovered during a
site visit. The Navy subsequently issued amendment No. 5 to correct the
square footage listed in the solicitation. We therefore consider this issue
to be academic.