TITLE:  Champion Service Corporation, B-284116, February 22, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284116
DATE:  February 22, 2000
**********************************************************************
Champion Service Corporation, B-284116, February 22, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Champion Service Corporation

File: B-284116

Date: February 22, 2000

Jinmahn Kim for the protester.

Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., for SelRico Services, Inc., an intervenor.

Capt. Bryan B. Davis and Jerry W. Aldridge, Department of the Air Force, for
the agency.

Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance is unobjectionable
where the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the procedures stated in the solicitation; protester's mere
disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render the evaluation
unreasonable.

2. Protest that agency award decision resulted directly from improper price
comparison is denied where, in making her award determination, the
contracting officer considered each offeror's price and performance risk, as
required by the solicitation, and reasonably determined that the lower
performance risk offered by the higher-price proposal warranted the payment
of the associated cost premium.

DECISION

Champion Service Corporation protests the award of a contract to SelRico
Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F07603-99-R6009, an
8(a) set-aside issued by the Department of the Air Force for food attendant
services at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Champion contends that its past
performance was improperly evaluated, that performance risk was improperly
considered as an unstated, separate evaluation factor, and that the agency
award decision was the direct result of an improper price comparison.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, posted to the electronic posting system on June 16, 1999,
contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with four
1-year option periods. RFP amend. 1, Schedule of Supplies/Services, at 3-7.
The RFP, as amended, provided that the agency would perform a
price/performance tradeoff to make a best value award decision. Id. at 17.
The RFP provided that if the proposal from the low-priced, technically
acceptable, responsible offeror received an "exceptional" performance risk
rating, it would constitute the "best value," but that award could be made
to other than the low, technically acceptable offeror if that offeror's
performance risk rating was "very good" or lower. Id.

The RFP stated that for purposes of making a performance risk rating, the
contracting officer would obtain performance information by using
questionnaires sent to references provided by the offerors, and data
independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Id. The
RFP asked offerors to provide a list of at least one but not more than five
of the most recent and relevant past and present contracts performed for the
government or commercial customers within the last 3 years. Id. at 14. Each
offeror was to provide for each contract, among other things, the
contracting agency or company, the contract number and dollar value, the
period of performance, the name, address and fax number of the contracting
officer and the product or service supplied. Id.

The Air Force received nine offers by the July 20, 1999 closing date.
Proposals were ranked by price and, as called for by the solicitation, the
technical proposals of the five low-priced offerors, including Champion's
and SelRico's, were evaluated. Agency Report, Tab 9, Integrated Assessment
Best Value Decision, at 2. After discussions, best and final offers (BAFO)
were received; SelRico offered a total evaluated price of $4,892,540 for all
base and option requirements, and Champion offered a price of $4,272,580.
Id.

The contracting officer sent survey questionnaires containing questions
dealing with performance schedules, management, personnel, quality control
and contractor cooperation to the sources provided by the offerors. Under
the denominated questions, survey respondents were asked to circle numerical
scores ranging from 1 to 6, representing ratings of "unsatisfactory,"
"marginal," "none," "satisfactory," "very good," and "exceptional,"
respectively. [1] Agency Report, Tab 5, Past Performance Information for
Champion Service Corporation, at 8-9. Each of these ratings was defined at
the top of the questionnaire. [2] Based on the survey responses, the
proposals were assigned an overall rating of exceptional, very good,
satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory.

Champion provided five references; surveys were sent to four and responses
were received from all four. [3] Agency Report, Tab 9, Integrated Assessment
Best Value Decision, at 2. Of the four responses, two involved strictly
custodial service contracts which were not considered relevant. The other
two surveys for food service were evaluated, resulting in a rating of "very
good." Agency Report, Tab 5, Past Performance Information for Champion
Service Corporation, at 9, 13. SelRico also provided five references;
surveys were sent to all five and responses were received from three. The
three surveys were evaluated, resulting in a rating of "exceptional." Agency
Report, Tab 9, Integrated Assessment Best Value Decision, at 3.

Because Champion offered the low price, but did not receive an "exceptional"
performance risk rating, as provided for by the RFP, the contracting officer
performed an integrated assessment best value determination. The contracting
officer noted that SelRico provided an "exceptional" performance risk rating
based on its highly rated, "vast past performance experience in major food
service contracts." Id. SelRico had more than 10 years of experience in food
services, with current contracts at three air force bases and had received
"laudatory comments" from its references on the past performance
questionnaires, as well as a 1998 Air Force award for food service
excellence. Id. In contrast, the contracting officer determined that
Champion presented a less favorable performance risk because of its less
highly rated experience, which did not pertain to large food service
contracts. Specifically, the contracting officer noted that Champion had
performed only two food service contracts, both of which were for a total
annual price of less than $100,000 and that neither contract required full
7-day per week service. Id.; Agency Report, Tab 2, Contracting Officer's
Statement, at 4. Because of the "criticality of food services to the
operation of Dover" and "SelRico's exceptional past performance," the
contracting officer determined that payment of the additional $134,292 per
year associated with the lower performance risk represented the best value
for the government and awarded the contract to SelRico. Agency Report,
Tab 9, Integrated Assessment Best Value Decision, at 4. After the agency
denied Champion's agency-level protest of the award decision, the protester
filed this protest with our Office.

Champion asserts that its past and present food service performance "was
rated excellent by all . . . contracting offices" and, therefore, its past
performance was incorrectly evaluated as "very good" rather than
"exceptional." Protest to Agency, Oct. 4, 1999, at 1. Champion also contends
that performance risk was improperly evaluated as a separate and unstated
evaluation factor. Protester's Comments at 1. The protester further asserts
that the award decision was actually based on the agency's experience with
pricing from the previous contractor rather than on Champion's pricing.
Protest at 1.

The evaluation of an offeror's past performance is a matter within the
discretion of the contracting agency and we will not substitute our judgment
for the agency's, so long as the rating is reasonably based and documented.
HLC Indus., Inc., B-274374, Dec. 6, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 214 at 3. Mere
disagreement with the agency's evaluation does not itself render the
evaluation unreasonable. Id.

Here, there is no basis to conclude that the agency improperly evaluated
Champion's proposal with respect to past performance. The record shows that
the rating was based on the two performance surveys concerning Champion's
food service experience. Specifically, the agency considered the scores from
these past performance questionnaires as the basis to assess the offeror's
past performance and assigned an appropriate performance risk rating.
Champion's survey responses consisted of 10 "satisfactory" ratings, 20 "very
good" ratings, and 1 "exceptional" rating, which the agency assessed as
warranting an overall "very good" rating. Agency Report, Tab 5, Past
Performance Information for Champion Service Corporation, at 23. Based on
this assessment, the agency reasonably assigned Champion a "very good"
performance risk rating. The protester's argument that its references rated
its performance as "excellent" is not supported by the record, nor is there
anything in the record to support the contention that Champion's performance
risk rating should have been "exceptional." Further, because the
solicitation sought past performance assessments for relevant contracts, the
agency reasonably observed that Champion's performance under two contracts
involving significantly less value and responsibilities than the instant
procurement had limited relevance. While Champion disagrees with the
agency's performance risk rating, Champion's mere disagreement with this
evaluation, as noted above, does not make it unreasonable and we find no
basis to question it. [4]

The protester's argument that performance risk was improperly evaluated as
an unstated evaluation criterion is without merit. First, we note that, even
when risk is not specifically listed in the solicitation as an evaluation
criterion, an agency is not precluded from considering any proposal risk
arising from an offeror's approach or demonstrated lack of understanding
that is intrinsic to the stated evaluation factors. Davies Rail & Mechanical
Works Inc., B-278260.2, Feb. 25, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 134 at 10. Here, as noted
above, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate the past performance
questionnaires submitted by references listed by each offeror to assess each
"offeror's ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the
offeror's demonstrated present and past performance." RFP amend. 1, at 17.
The RFP also explicitly stated that the "assessment process will result in
an overall risk rating of exceptional, very good, satisfactory, none
marginal, or unsatisfactory. Id. Thus, the RFP put offerors on notice that
the agency would assess each offeror's past and present performance in order
to make a performance risk evaluation. In sum, contrary to Champion's
contention, performance risk was not an inappropriately evaluated, unstated
evaluation criterion.

Champion also argues that the agency did not award it a contract simply
because of a performance risk assessment based on the agency's view that
Champion's price was low in comparison to the previous contractor's price.
Champion protests that this "plain blind comparison with [the] previous
contractor['s] price" is an "unfair predictor of [Champion's] potential for
success." Protester's Comments at 1; Protest at 1.

Champion's characterization of the award determination is simply not
supported by the record. As detailed above, the contracting officer
performed an appropriate performance risk assessment and made an award
determination on the basis of a tradeoff which considered that SelRico's
relatively lower performance risk warranted payment of the associated cost
premium. In addition, the contracting officer compared Champion's price with
the price of each of the offerors, the prior contractor's price, and the
government estimate, and noted that Champion's price was significantly lower
than all of the other prices. [5] The contracting officer noted that this
price comparison "further supports my position" that there is reason to
question whether Champion would "provid[e] the quality service we expect."
Agency Report, Tab 9, Integrated Assessment Best Value Decision, at 4.
Contrary to Champion's assertion, the contracting officer did not base her
selection decision on this price comparison. Rather, as outlined above, the
record establishes that the contracting officer's decision to select the
higher-rated, higher-priced proposal

was driven by her conclusion that SelRico's performance risk evaluation was

significantly better than Champion's. Under these circumstances we see
nothing improper in this determination and there is no basis to object to
the award.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. The survey respondents also had the option of circling "N/A" for "not
applicable" in response to each question.

2. For example, "very good" was defined as performance which met all
contract requirements and exceeded some to the government's benefit, with
only a few minor problems which the contractor resolved in a timely,
effective manner.

3. One reference was not contacted because it was for work performed outside
the specified time frame, involving a contract at Grissom Air Force Base,
which was closed in 1994.

4. Champion does not question SelRico's past performance evaluation, which
we note was based on substantially better survey responses for more
comparable contract performance.

5. The contracting officer had concerns with Champion's relatively low
initial price, and during discussions had suggested that Champion visit and
observe Dover's food service operation. Agency Report, Tab 5(A)(2),
Transmittal of Deficiencies and Clarifications, at 1. Champion did so, but
elected not to revise its price in its BAFO.