TITLE:  Ostrom Painting & Sandblasting, Inc., B-285244, July 18, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285244
DATE:  July 18, 2000
**********************************************************************
Ostrom Painting & Sandblasting, Inc., B-285244, July 18, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Ostrom Painting & Sandblasting, Inc.

File: B-285244

Date: July 18, 2000

Michael P. Byrne, Esq., Lane & Waterman, for the protester.

Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., and Mark Hanson, Esq., Department of the Air
Force, for the agency.

Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging evaluation of protester's past performance information
and award to offeror whose proposal, while slightly higher priced, was rated
substantially higher than protester's proposal for past performance, is
denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated
evaluation scheme.

DECISION

Ostrom Painting & Sandblasting, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
BMAR & Associates, Inc. by the Department of the Air Force under request for
proposals (RFP) No. F32605-99-R0016 for military family housing maintenance
services at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota. Ostrom contends that
the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the past performance
evaluation factor and improperly awarded the contract to BMAR at a higher
price than that proposed by Ostrom.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on December 30, 1999, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price, requirements-type contract for a base year and 4 option years.
RFP Schedule of Supplies/Services. The RFP's performance requirements
include routine and emergency maintenance and repair services (including
plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and structural work) for 1,769 military
family housing units. Examples of the required range of services under the
RFP include: equipment maintenance and repair services involving, for
instance, gas furnaces, gas and electric water heaters, and smoke and carbon
monoxide detectors; recurring interior maintenance related to fireplace,
chimney, heating, air conditioning and ventilating systems, as well as duct
cleaning and other maintenance requirements; recurring exterior maintenance
for the housing units, including garages, patios, sidewalks, fences and
playground equipment; change of occupancy maintenance to include, for
instance, painting, carpeting, and flooring services; and appliance cleaning
and maintenance. RFP Statement of Work, para.para. 1.1-1.27. Additionally, the
contractor, who is also responsible for the electric, telephone, gas, sewer
and water lines for each housing unit, must operate a service call program
24 hours a day for emergency, urgent, and routine housing maintenance and
repairs. Id. para. 1.2.

The two evaluation factors for award, past performance and price, were of
approximately equal importance. RFP sect.  52.212-2. Offerors were instructed
that information obtained from their past performance references would be
reviewed to

evaluate the quality and extent of [the] offeror's experience deemed
relevant to the requirements of this RFP. Relevant contracts include, but
are not limited to those providing housing property maintenance services or
other types similar in magnitude to those required in this solicitation.

RFP Specific Instructions, para. B(3). Each offeror's past performance
information was to include "recent and relevant contracts for the same or
similar items." RFP sect. 52.212-1(b)(10). The RFP notified offerors of the
agency's intent to award without discussions, RFP sect. 52.212-1(g), and,
accordingly, offerors were advised to submit their best terms in their
initial proposals with sufficient information to "enable the evaluator[s] to
fully ascertain each offeror's capability to perform all the requirements
contemplated by this solicitation." RFP sect. 52.212-2(a)(6).

Eighteen proposals were received in response to the RFP. Ostrom submitted
the lowest-priced proposal at $[deleted], and BMAR submitted the second
lowest-priced proposal at $8,397,106; BMAR's price is approximately
[deleted] percent higher than Ostrom's. Ostrom submitted information
regarding six of its prior contracts and identified a reference for each
contract. The protester described the work under those contracts as
including interior painting, repairs and refinishing of hardwood flooring;
exterior painting; lead-based remediation; asbestos removal; repairs of
surfaces prior to painting; sheetrock hanging and finishing; pavement
marking; and installation of flooring materials including sheet vinyl and
floor tile. Letter from Ostrom to Contracting Officer encl. (Jan. 4, 2000).
One of those contracts, identified by Ostrom as an Air Force contract to
"Paint Exteriors of Facilities," was priced at approximately $9 million. Id.
at 1.

The contracting officer received favorable performance ratings (of "very
good" and "exceptional") from Ostrom's references related to the firm's
performance of those contracts. The references, however, confirmed the
protester's general description of those contracts as involving mainly
painting-related and refinishing services. Contracting Officer's Statement,
May 17, 2000, at 4. The evaluators concluded that, although Ostrom had
favorable references for its painting-related work under the cited
contracts, painting was only a small portion of the current RFP's work
requirements. The evaluators decided that [deleted]. [1] Memorandum of Law
at 6. Consequently, the evaluation team assigned the firm's proposal a
neutral rating of "none" under the past performance factor for failure to
provide sufficiently relevant past performance information for evaluation of
the firm's capability to perform the RFP's overall "complex, multi-skilled"
contract requirements. Team Performance Ratings at 1.

Conversely, BMAR's past performance was rated as exceptional based upon the
exceptional performance reviews received for the firm from its references
for contracts described by both BMAR and its references as involving
substantially similar contracts of similar magnitude, with the same type of
comprehensive housing maintenance services as those required under the RFP
at similar contract prices. Integrated Assessment Best Value Decision at 2.
The evaluators determined that the [deleted] percent price premium
associated with the BMAR proposal was very slight and was otherwise
outweighed by the benefits, in terms of performance assurances and "quality
of life implications for military personnel," associated with the firm's
exceptional past performance risk rating. Having determined that the BMAR
proposal offered the best value to the agency, the contracting officer
awarded the contract under the RFP to that firm. Id. This protest followed.

Ostrom does not challenge the high past performance rating assigned to
BMAR's proposal, but contends that the agency improperly evaluated the
protester's past performance information. Specifically, Ostrom contends that
the neutral rating of "none," indicating a lack of relevant past performance
information for evaluation of the firm's capability to perform the current
requirements, is unreasonable. Ostrom contends that its prior contracts,
identified by the firm for evaluation under the past performance factor,
included some maintenance work in addition to painting services. Ostrom also
argues that all its reference contracts were significant in dollar value
($670,000 to $9 million) and points specifically to the $9 million contract
as one similar in magnitude to the contract to be awarded under the RFP.

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. Support Servs., Inc., B-282407, B-282407.2, July 8, 1999,
99-2 CPD para. 30 at 3. The protester's mere disagreement with the agency's
judgment in its determination of the relative merit of competing proposals
does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. Hard Bodies, Inc.,
B-279543, June 23, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 172 at 3. As discussed below, we find
that the evaluation of the protester's past performance information and the
agency's price/past performance tradeoff determination were reasonable and
consistent with the evaluation criteria.

Ostrom contends that it demonstrated relevant, highly-rated past performance
and received high ratings from its past performance references for those
contracts. Ostrom also argues that the dollar value of its prior contracts
demonstrates that they are similar in magnitude to the contract to be
awarded here. Ostrom therefore asserts that it should be rated as
exceptional under the past performance factor and that it should be awarded
the contract here as the lowest-priced offeror. [2]

Although Ostrom contends that having performed a contract of approximately
the same contract price and others of substantial dollar value shows that it
can successfully perform a contract under the RFP, the RFP's past
performance evaluation provisions provided for a comparative assessment of
the offerors' past performance and experience in terms of "relevant
contracts" for "the same or similar items." RFP sect. 52.212-1(b)(10). We
recognize that, in describing relevant contracts, the RFP refers to
contracts for "housing property maintenance services or other types similar
in magnitude to those required in this solicitation." RFP Specific
Instructions, para. B(3) (emphasis added). This reference, however, must be read
with the purpose of the experience evaluation in mind. That purpose was to
evaluate an offeror's capability to perform the requirements of the RFP,
which, as described above, called for multiple, distinct services and
capabilities. Accordingly, we think it clearly was reasonable and consistent
with the RFP for the agency to consider "relevant" only those prior
contracts involving services that are the same as or similar to those called
for under the RFP.

Our review of the record supports the reasonableness of the evaluators'
determination that Ostrom's past performance information, at best, indicated
that the firm had successfully performed only a small portion of the current
RFP's requirements. None of the protester's past performance information,
for example, demonstrated experience providing services in the areas of
plumbing, electrical, and mechanical repair services. We therefore find
reasonable the evaluators' conclusion that the limited scope of that
experience did not demonstrate the firm's capability to perform the full
range of services required under the current RFP.

BMAR's past performance information, on the other hand, persuasively
demonstrated that firm's substantial experience with very similar military
family housing maintenance services; moreover, the majority of its
references rated the firm's performance of that highly relevant work as
exceptional. Accordingly, since BMAR's prior contract work was significantly
broader and substantially more relevant to the agency's current needs, the
record provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's
determination that the payment of the relatively small price premium
associated with BMAR's proposal was warranted to obtain the substantial
additional assurance of satisfactory performance. [3]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Ostrom contends that the evaluators failed to give credit to the firm for
its past performance on a contract categorized by that contract's issuing
agency as a housing maintenance service contract. The title given to a
contract, however, does not necessarily convey the full nature of the
contract. In fact, our review of the record indicates that the evaluators
did review that contract and confirmed with the reference for that contract
that it was mostly related to painting and refinishing of housing units and
did not involve the full scope of mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other
services required under the current RFP.

2. Ostrom argues that it would be able to perform as a general contractor
coordinating subcontractors' efforts to complete the multi-skilled tasks
required under the RFP. In this regard, the RFP provided that past
performance information regarding subcontractors that will perform major or
critical aspects of the requirement would be rated as highly as past
performance information for the principal offeror. RFP Specific
Instructions, para. B(3). Although Ostrom could have submitted for evaluation
purposes past performance information about the subcontractors it now claims
it could coordinate in order to get all of the RFP's requirements performed
successfully, the firm did not do so.

3. Ostrom also generally challenges the agency's failure to hold discussions
with the firm or request clarifications regarding the relevance of its past
performance information. Where, as here, the RFP advised offerors that the
agency did not intend to conduct discussions, RFP
sect.sect. 52.212-1(g), 52.212-2(a)(6), there generally is no obligation to conduct
discussions. Inland Serv. Corp., B-282272, June 21, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 113 at
4. With regard to seeking clarifications on this issue from Ostrom, FAR
sect.15.306(a)(2) provides that when an award is to be made without discussions,
an offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of its
proposal such as the relevance of its past performance information. Here, we
cannot see any basis to conclude that the agency was required to issue
clarification requests, given that the past performance information it
obtained from the protester regarding the scope of its prior contracts was
clear and was confirmed by the firm's references. See A. G. Cullen Constr.,
Inc., B-284049.2, Feb. 22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 45.