TITLE:  Ideal Electronic Security Company, Inc., B-283398, November 10, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283398
DATE:  November 10, 1999
**********************************************************************
Ideal Electronic Security Company, Inc., B-283398, November 10, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Ideal Electronic Security Company, Inc.

File: B-283398

Date: November 10, 1999

Jennifer C. Adams, Esq., and Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., Martin & Rylander, for
the protester.

Andrew N. Cook, Esq., and Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for

M.C. Dean, an intervenor.

Lydia Kupersmith, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.

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

DIGEST

Protest challenging past performance evaluation and resulting source
selection decision is denied where, notwithstanding limited contemporaneous
documentation supporting award decision, record includes post-protest
explanation consistent with the available contemporaneous documentation,
both of which support agency's determination that proposals were technically
equal and that lowest-priced proposal therefore represented best value to
the government.

DECISION

Ideal Electronic Security Company, Inc., the incumbent contractor, protests
the award of a contract to M.C. Dean under request for proposals (RFP) No.
GS11P-99-ZGC-2001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for
maintenance of security equipment at the Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center (RRB). Ideal argues that GSA improperly failed to
conduct a qualitative evaluation of past performance, as required by the
RFP, and that the record therefore does not support the source selection
decision.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, as amended, requested fixed-price offers for certain required
personnel, materials, supplies and equipment, for a base and 4 option years,
to maintain, support, inspect, and repair the RRB's integrated computerized
security system. The solicitation provided for award on the basis of the
best value to the government, considering price and past performance. [1]
Under past performance, the solicitation provided that, in order to be
considered minimally acceptable, an offeror "must demonstrate performance of
at least four (4) contracts of a similar nature within the past three years"
and that "[s]ervices are considered similar if the functions,
responsibilities, and control exercised by the contractor were essentially
the same as required by the solicitation." RFP amend. 01, sect. M.2.B, at IV-M.
The RFP advised that "[f]ailure to meet this requirement will render the
offer technically unacceptable" and, alternatively, that if the requirement
was met, "the Government will evaluate the information to determine the
quality of the offeror's past performance," "considering timeliness and
technical success." Id. In this regard, the RFP included a "Performance
Evaluation" form, for submission by the offerors, that was to include
specific past performance information on each identified contract, including
references, complexity of work, and description/location of work. RFP amend.
01, sect. L.9.A, at IV-L-4 and exh. 3, at III-J-14.

The agency issued the RFP on a limited competition basis to six firms in the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Justification for Other than Full and
Open Competition (Aug. 20, 1999). All six firms submitted proposals. M.C.
Dean's was low at $1,426,810, and Ideal's was second-low at $1,534,363. (The
other proposals are not relevant here.) Based on the submitted past
performance information, the contracting officer determined that all firms
met the minimum technical requirement of four similar contracts within the
past 3 years. He then proceeded to evaluate the quality of past performance
based on his review of comments from telephone interviews conducted with
Ideal's and M.C. Dean's submitted contract references. These interviews were
conducted by a different agency administrative assistant for each firm. The
questions posed in the interviews were as follows: (1) "How was the
offeror's overall contract performance?"; (2) "Did the offeror perform work
in a timely manner?"; and (3) "Did the offeror provide adequate staffing?"
Supplemental Agency Report, Declarations of Administrative Assistants (DAA),
Sept. 24, 1999. The agency administrative assistants who conducted the
interviews typed comments from the interviewees on "Performance Reference"
sheets. Id.

The interview comments documented from M.C. Dean's four contract references
were as follows: (1) "It was a complex project[;] M.C. Dean was above
average as a contractor[;] [t]here was a staffing problem for a brief
period"; (2) "It was a 50 million dollar contract[;] M.C. Dean maintained
the best working contract with few, if any problems[;] [i]t was near
Perfect"; (3) "M.C. Dean was a good contractor[;] [t]here was a 3-month
period w[h]ere staffing was a problem[;] [i]t was resolved, and the contract
continued successfully"; and (4) "M.C. Dean did a fine job." Performance
Reference Sheets for M.C. Dean. Also during the interviews, the agency
administrative assistants obtained further explanation from the first and
third interviewees concerning their comments on M.C. Dean. M.C. Dean's first
reference explained that the staffing problem was "brief" and "did not
[a]ffect the timeliness or technical success of Dean's performance." DAA on
M.C. Dean's Reference Interviews, Sept. 24, 1999. M.C. Dean's third
reference explained that "the staffing issues in contracts of this type were
not unusual because the technician must have specific qualifications, and
overall, Dean remedied the problem and provided adequate coverage such that
she considered Dean to be a ‘good' contractor." Id.

These comments were not contemporaneously documented. However, they were
known to the contracting officer at the time of the evaluation and were
documented in post-protest statements. Contracting Officer's Statement of
Fact and Position (COSF), Sept. 7, 1999, at 3-5; Declaration of Contracting
Officer (DCO), Sept. 24, 1999, at 1.

As for Ideal, the agency administrative assistant was unable to contact one
of the firm's submitted references; the documented interviewee comments for
the firm's remaining contract references were as follows: (1) "Placed
I[deal] under their General Contractor therefore they were able to have
deadline met, within good timing"; (2) "Satisfactory, met the . . .
deadlines"; (3) "was satisfied with their services and would recommend
I[deal's] services . . . ." Performance Reference Sheets for Ideal; DAA on
Ideal's Reference Interviews, Sept. 24, 1999.

Based on the documented comments from the references and the additional
unrecorded explanations from M.C. Dean's references, the contracting officer
determined that "neither offeror [Ideal nor M.C. Dean] had negative past
performance histories, that is neither offeror had problems with timeliness
or technical success," and concluded that "Ideal and Dean were technically
equal." COSF at 5; DCO at 1.

Subsequently, at the contracting officer's direction, a third agency
administrative assistant requested that agency technical representatives
(ATR) from the RRB's three tenant agencies and from GSA "review" the
proposals and provide their "recommendations." E-Mail from GSA
Administrative Assistant to ATRs, July 23, 1999. Positive and negative
comments were received from the ATRs for both firms. E-Mail Responses from
Customs Service and GSA, July 23, 1999; E-Mail Response from Agency for
International Development, July 26, 1999; Memorandum Response from
Environmental Protection Agency, July 23, 1999. The contracting officer
reviewed the ATRs' comments and concluded that "none of the comments raised
issues as to the offerors' compliance with the requirements of the
solicitation" or "warranted changing [his] prior determination that the
offerors were technically equal." COSF at 5-6; DCO at 1. Accordingly, in
light of his determination that the two proposals were technically equal,
the contracting officer concluded that M.C.

Dean's low price made the offer the best value to the government. The agency
made award to that firm on August 1. Following a debriefing from the agency,
Ideal filed this protest in our Office.

Ideal argues that the contemporaneous documentation in the record shows that
the agency did not perform an adequate qualitative analysis of past
performance, but instead merely confirmed that offerors had met the
four-contract minimum requirement and then made award based on price. Ideal
asserts that the remaining, noncontemporaneous record is insufficient to
support the source selection decision because it contains statements as to
how the evaluation was conducted which conflict with the explanation given
at the debriefing. Ideal concludes that, given the flaws in the past
performance evaluation, there was no reasonable basis for making award to
M.C. Dean based on price.

In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection
decision, we examine the record to determine whether the agency acted
reasonably and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. PRC, Inc.,
B-274698.2, B-274698.3, Jan. 23, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 115 at 4. Where a
solicitation requires an evaluation of offerors' past performance, the
agency has the discretion to determine the scope of the evaluation, provided
that all proposals are evaluated on the same basis and the evaluation is
consistent with the terms of the RFP. See USATREX Int'l, Inc., B-275592,
B-275592.2, Mar. 6, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 99 at 3. We will review the
documentation supporting the source selection decision to determine whether
the decision was adequately supported and rationally related to the
evaluation factors. J.A. Jones Management Servs., Inc., B-276864, July 24,
1997, 97-2 CPD para. 47 at 4. Implicit in the foregoing is that the evaluation
must be documented in sufficient detail to show that it was not arbitrary.
Federal Acquisition Regulation sect.sect. 15.305(a), 15.308; Quality Elevator Co.,
Inc., B-276750, July 23, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 28 at 3; Adelaide Blomfield
Management Co., B-253128.2, Sept. 27, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 197 at 4. In
reviewing the record, while we generally accord greater weight to
contemporaneous evidence, we consider post-protest explanations, so long as
those explanations are credible and consistent with the rationality of
selection decisions. Jason Assocs. Corp., B-278689 et al., Mar. 2, 1998,
98-1 CPD para. 67 at 6-7; PRC, Inc., supra, at 4-5.

The evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable. First,
although the evaluation record is relatively sparse, it clearly contained
sufficient information to support a qualitative evaluation that enabled the
agency to distinguish among the proposals to the extent they were
distinguishable. As discussed, the offerors' references were asked the same
specific questions as to how the offerors had performed on the contracts in
question and the references furnished answers that revealed the extent of
their satisfaction with the firms' performance. Where references indicated
M.C. Dean had experienced staffing problems, the protest record shows that
the agency sought and received explanation from the references.

While these explanations were not documented at the time, the contracting
officer has provided a declaration and statement establishing that he was
aware of the information at the time of the evaluation. There is nothing in
the record that contradicts this declaration and statement or that casts
doubt on its veracity. Jason Assocs. Corp., supra. We conclude that the past
performance information received provided the agency with a basis for
assessing the overall quality of the offerors' past performance, and for
comparing the proposals in this regard. Nothing more was required by the RFP
or by a standard of reasonableness.

Although the contracting officer did not contemporaneously document his
evaluation conclusion that the proposals were technically equal, his
statements to this effect credibly support the conclusion that he in fact
made such a determination.

Specifically, the contracting officer states that he considered the recorded
past performance reference comments and the explanations that staffing
problems on two of M.C. Dean's contracts were resolved and did not affect
the firm's overall successful performance. On this basis, the contracting
officer states, he determined that the offerors' past performance was equal
since neither offeror had a negative past performance history. COSF at 3-5;
DCO at 1. The contracting officer's statements are corroborated by the fact
that the references' comments clearly support a conclusion that the firms'
past performance was equivalent. As discussed, the reference comments for
M.C. Dean included remarks that the firm was an above average contractor and
that staffing problems were either resolved such that the contract continued
successfully or were brief and did not affect the timeliness or technical
success of the firm's performance. For Ideal, the comments included remarks
that the firm met deadlines with satisfactory performance and that its
services were recommended. As shown by these examples, the comments for the
firms were similar in that neither firm's performance was rated by the
references as deficient and nothing in Ideal's reference comments suggested
that its rating should have been better than M.C. Dean's. [2] In light of
these comments, considered together with the explanations regarding M.C.
Dean's staffing problems, it was reasonable for the agency to rate the
proposals the same for past performance.

Ideal points to statements made by the agency at the debriefing that it
asserts are inconsistent with a conclusion that the agency performed a
qualitative past performance evaluation. Specifically, Ideal cites the
statements: "Past performance evaluation: MDI qualified, etc. w/four similar
contracts in past three years" and "Lowest price was selected of qualified
offerors." Debriefing Minutes, Aug. 3, 1999. We do not agree with the
protester. The failure of these cryptic statements to refer to an analysis
does not constitute persuasive evidence that no analysis occurred; it
appears to us that the statements were not intended as a comprehensive
response to the question of whether or exactly how a past performance
evaluation was conducted. In any case, given our finding that the past
performance information gathered supported a determination of technical
equality, the contracting officer's statements that he made such a finding,
and our conclusion that his finding was reasonable, these debriefing
statements provide no basis for questioning the adequacy of the evaluation.

Ideal asserts that the contracting officer improperly considered the ATR
comments (since the solicitation did not indicate such information would be
considered), and Ideal's past performance at the RRB. Supplemental Comments,
Oct. 4, 1999, at 1. Even if we accept the premise of Ideal's argument--that
it was improper for the agency to consider this information--there is no
indication in the record that the contracting officer relied at all on the
additional information. In a post-protest statement, the contracting officer
states that, although he read the ATR comments, he recognized that "several
of the agency representatives provided qualitative comments about the
proposals" but he "did not consider these qualitative comments." DCO at 3-4.
The protester has not demonstrated otherwise. Moreover, since these comments
included positive and negative remarks on both offerors, there would be no
reason to believe they had a negative impact on the relative evaluation even
if they were considered.

Similarly, there is no indication that reports of deficiencies in Ideal's
performance of its current RRB contract played any part in the evaluation.
The information regarding these deficiencies was submitted by the agency
solely in support of its assertion that Ideal's past performance would no
longer be considered equal to
M.C. Dean's if the competition were reopened as a result of the protest. In
a post-protest statement, the contracting officer states that, although he
had knowledge of the deficient past performance, he did not consider it in
the evaluation because it was not a product of the performance interviews.
DCO at 4. This statement is consistent with the fact that the contracting
officer determined that Ideal did not have a negative past performance
history, and thus, as we have found with regard to the contracting officer's
other statements, is credible.

Where, as here, proposals are determined to be technically equal, the only
discriminator for award selection is evaluated cost or price. International
SOS Assistance, Inc., B-245571.5, Jan. 26, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 273 at 11. Since
M.C. Dean offered the lowest evaluated price, the contracting officer
properly selected that firm for award.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Where, as here, an RFP does not indicate the relative weight of technical
and cost factors, offerors are entitled to assume that they are of equal
weight. National Test Pilot Sch., B-237503, Feb. 27, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 238 at
3, aff'd, B-237503.2, B-237503.3, June 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 579.

2. We note that, while Ideal challenges the manner in which the agency
conducted the past performance evaluation, it nowhere asserts that its past
performance should have been rated superior to M.C. Dean's.