TITLE:  Dellew Corporation, B-284227, March 13, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284227
DATE:  March 13, 2000
**********************************************************************
Dellew Corporation, B-284227, March 13, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Dellew Corporation

File: B-284227

Date: March 13, 2000

James F. Nagle, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, for the protester.

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

John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Maj. Michael A. Sciales, 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 the agency's evaluation of past performance is denied
where the record shows that the evaluators reasonably assessed the awardee's
proposal as "[DELETED]" and the protester's proposal as "[DELETED]" under
the same factor; the protester's mere disagreement does not render the
agency's judgment unreasonable.

DECISION

Dellew Corporation protests the award of a contract to SelRico Services,
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F24604-99-R-0027, issued by the
Department of the Air Force to provide food service attendant services at
Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) in Montana. Dellew principally contends that
the agency's evaluation and the selection decision were unreasonable and
inconsistent with the stated evaluation factors for award.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued as a commercial item solicitation, contemplated the award of
a fixed-price plus award fee contract for a base period with up to four
1-year option periods. RFP sect. I, at 3-7. The contractor is to provide all
personnel, supervision, and services, including serving and replenishing
food, cleaning facilities, performing cashier services, and maintaining
quality control. Id., Statement of Work, at 3. The RFP stated that award was
to be made on a best value basis considering past performance and price,
with past performance approximately equal to price. RFP sect. VI, Evaluation
Factors, at 14. Under the past performance risk assessment factor, the RFP
stated that a performance risk assessment would be conducted on each
proposal, using a rating scale of exceptional/high confidence, very
good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown
confidence, marginal/little confidence, or unsatisfactory/no confidence. [1]
RFP sect. VI, Evaluation Factors, at 14-15.

In assessing past performance risk, the RFP stated that the evaluators would
review the experience listed in the proposal, seek additional present and
past performance information through the use of simplified questionnaires,
and use data independently obtained from other government and commercial
sources. The purpose of this effort was "to identify and review relevant
present and past performance and then make an overall risk assessment of the
offeror's ability to perform this effort." RFP sect. VI, Evaluation Factors, at
15. Offerors were required to submit past performance information for
"recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items." RFP sect. V,
Instructions to Offerors, at 13. Under the performance risk/price tradeoff
provision, the RFP further stated:

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the
lowest evaluated price and award to a higher priced offeror with a better
performance risk rating. In these cases, price and performance risk are both
treated as equal areas and may be traded off, one against the other. The
contracting officer shall make an assessment of the price proposed and the
performance risk rating

assigned to determine the best value for the government.

RFP sect. VI, Evaluation Factors, at 14.

Dellew and SelRico were among the offerors that submitted initial proposals
by the extended closing time. In terms of past performance, Dellew's
proposal included information pertaining to 13 past and current contracts.
Of these, the evaluators identified only two contracts that were considered
relevant to the solicited requirements: (1) a food services contract with
Malmstrom AFB from October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998; and (2) a
mess attendant services contract at a Naval facility in Hawaii from October
1, 1994 through March 31, 1995. In contrast, SelRico's proposal listed six
food services/mess attendant contracts at Department of Defense (DoD) dining
facilities in Colorado, Guam, Michigan, and Texas. The evaluators noted that
SelRico-operated facilities had received the Air Force Hennessey award and
the Navy Ney award for excellence in their food service programs. Agency
Report, Tab 7, Evaluation Assessment Report. All five of the references that
addressed the question stated that they would award to SelRico today based
on its performance on the current contract. Agency Report, Tab 11, Past
Performance Questionnaires. Based on information submitted by the offerors
and information provided by references contacted by the agency, the agency
assigned a risk rating to each offeror's proposal.

The evaluated ratings and prices for the protester's and awardee's proposals
were as follows:

 Offeror   Past Performance/     Price
           Performance Risk      (base +
                                 options)

 Dellew    [DELETED]             [DELETED]

 SelRico   [DELETED]             $4,739,172

Agency Report, Tab 7, Evaluation Assessment Report.

In making his award determination, the contracting officer considered
SelRico's higher performance risk assessment and the price differential
between SelRico and Dellew. The contracting officer agreed with the
evaluators that SelRico's performance record was more relevant than
Dellew's. More specifically, in reviewing the proposals and the evaluation
record, the contracting officer noted

that:

Dellew Corp. has had only two Mess Attendant Service contracts in the past.
The past performance questionnaires considered Dellew as having a
significant confidence rating. They currently have no food service or mess
attendant contracts. Their total food service/mess attendant experience is
limited to approximately three (3) years total. Dellew's primary area of
expertise is not in food service/mess attendant contracts.

SelRico currently has six (6) food service/mess attendant contracts. They
have been serving the government in the food service industry for ten (10)
years. They specialize in food service/mess attendant contracts. All past
performance questionnaires were significant to high confidence ratings.
SelRico was the 1998 winner of the prestigious Hennessey award for a
contract on Anderson AFB, Guam and the Ney, from a Navy contract on Pearl
Harbor, HI.

Agency Report, Tab 8, Past Performance Evaluation. The contracting officer
concluded that the "government is willing to trade-off approximately
[DELETED] in exchange for better past performance, more experience and more
expertise in food service/mess attendant contracts. They are obviously
capable of competing for the prestigious Hennessey and the Ney food service
awards." Id. The contracting officer therefore determined that SelRico's
proposal represented the best value to the government and awarded the
contract to SelRico on the basis of its initial proposal. The agency
provided a debriefing to Dellew on December 1, 1999, and this protest
followed.

The protester challenges the evaluation on several grounds. In reviewing an
agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office will question the agency's
evaluation only where it violates a procurement statute or regulation, lacks
a reasonable basis, or is inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria
for award. B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827, B-283828, Dec. 27, 1999, 99-2
CPD para. at 6. Based on our review of the evaluation record, including the
protester's and the awardee's proposals and the agency's evaluation
documentation, we find the protest is without merit.

The protester initially alleges that the evaluation of proposals was based
on an undisclosed third evaluation factor, company experience. Protester's
Comments at 4. The RFP here specifically stated that in assessing
performance risk, the experience listed in an offeror's proposal would be
reviewed. Thus, the agency's consideration of SelRico's 10 years of
experience in providing food services to the government was entirely
consistent with the RFP.

Dellew also challenges the agency's evaluation of its and SelRico's
proposals as "[DELETED]" and "[DELETED]," respectively, based on the past
performance information in the record. It is Dellew's position that its
proposal should have received a past performance rating equal to the
awardee's, which would have resulted in award to it based on its lower
price. Protester's Comments at 12. According to the protester, SelRico's 10
years of experience in the food industry became the deciding factor and in
doing so the agency ignored the 20 years of general contractor experience
possessed by Dellew's own corporate officers.
Id. at 6-7.

The RFP informed offerors that the agency would assess each offeror's
recent, demonstrated record of successful past performance of the same or
similar services as those required under the RFP. The evaluators found in
reviewing Dellew's proposal that the firm had a limited past performance
record of providing food/mess attendant services. The evaluators noted that
the firm currently has no food/mess attendant contracts and that Dellew's
primary area of expertise is not in food services/mess attendant services.
[2] However, the evaluators considered the past performance information
supplied by the firm (as confirmed by its references) for the two relevant
food/mess attendant services contract and found that Dellew merited a "very
good" rating for this evaluation factor. Thus, contrary to the protester's
assertions, there is no basis to conclude that the agency ignored
information submitted in its proposal or otherwise improperly evaluated its
proposal concerning past performance.

On the other hand, the past performance information upon which SelRico was
evaluated indicated a marked superiority in past performance over that of
Dellew's and, therefore, warranted an "exceptional" rating. As recognized by
the evaluators, SelRico's proposal indicated that the firm specialized in
food/mess attendant services, and that SelRico currently had six contracts
similar to the contract to be awarded under this RFP at various DoD dining
facilities. Five references stated that they would contract with SelRico
again. (One reference did not address this matter.) The agency was also
aware that SelRico was the contractor at facilities that were the recipients
of food service awards from the Air Force (the Hennessey) and the Navy (the
Ney). While Dellew complains that the agency placed undue emphasis on
SelRico's role in the facilities' receipt of these two awards, we think this
was not the case. While we recognize that government personnel may play a
key role in earning the awards, we see nothing unreasonable in the agency's
concluding that the contractor also deserves credit when a facility earns
the award. These awards reasonably were viewed as a strong indication of
SelRico's ability to successfully perform the contracts. [3] Overall, it is
clear from the record that SelRico's rating reflected judgments about the
quality of SelRico's past work and was not based solely on the quantity of
SelRico's experience. Based on the record, we have no reason to question the
exceptional past performance rating assigned to SelRico's proposal. Dellew's
mere disagreement with the evaluators' judgment does not render the
evaluation unreasonable. [4] Matrix Int'l Logistics, Inc., B-277208,
B-277208.2, Sept. 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 94 at 4.

Finally, Dellew maintains that the difference in evaluated past performance
risk cannot reasonably have a value to the agency of the approximately
[DELETED] difference in price between its proposal and SelRico's. Protest at
3. In a best value procurement, price is not necessarily controlling in
determining the proposal that represents the best value to the government.
Where, as here, the RFP identifies past performance and price as the
evaluation factors, the selection official must decide whether or not a
higher-priced proposal submitted by an offeror with a better past
performance/performance risk rating represents the best value to the
government. H.F. Henderson Indus., B-275017, Jan. 17, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 27 at
2-3. We will review a selection decision to ensure that it was reasonable
and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. Id.

As explained above, we find that the agency's performance risk evaluation
was reasonable. The contracting officer considered the difference in the
offerors' ratings and Dellew's lower price. He determined that a price
premium of approximately [DELETED] over 5 years was justified by SelRico's
more extensive experience, better past performance and high confidence
ratings. That analysis appears reasonable and consistent with the RFP, and
we therefore have no basis to question the contracting officer's tradeoff
determination.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. The adjectival ratings were defined as: exceptional/high confidence
(performance record demonstrates no doubt that offeror will successfully
perform); very good/significant confidence (little doubt exists);
satisfactory/confidence (some doubt exists); neutral/unknown confidence (no
performance record); marginal/little confidence (substantial doubt exists);
and unsatisfactory/no confidence (extreme doubt exists). RFP sect. VI,
Evaluation Factors, at 15.

2. This conclusion was based on information provided in Dellew's proposal
for 11 past and present contracts that the evaluators judged as not relevant
under the past performance factor because the protester did not provide
services similar to the solicited requirements. For example, one contract
involved armed guard services for the Coast Guard in Hawaii and another
contract involved passenger terminal monitoring services at Hickam AFB in
Hawaii.

3. The protester concedes that SelRico had "some role" in the earning of
these awards. Protester's Comments at 11.

4. As demonstrated by the above discussion, there is no evidence suggesting,
as Dellew alleges, that the agency treated the offerors unequally in
evaluating their records of past performance. Protester's Comments at 8. The
agency did not obtain references for prior contracts in a manner which was
either favorable to SelRico or unfairly prejudicial to Dellew. Rather, the
agency simply complied with the RFP requirement to evaluate past performance
for services that were the "same" or "similar" in scope to this requirement.