TITLE:  Green Valley Transportation, Inc., B-285283, August 9, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285283
DATE:  August 9, 2000
**********************************************************************
Green Valley Transportation, Inc., B-285283, August 9, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Green Valley Transportation, Inc.

File: B-285283

Date: August 9, 2000

Leo S. Fisher, Esq., and Raighne C. Delaney, Esq., Bean, Kinney and Korman,
for the protester.

Capt. Ryan M. Zipf, Col. Nicholas P. Retson, and Col. Michael R. Neds,
Department of the Army, for the agency.

Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Under solicitation for freight transportation, contracting agency's
evaluation of offerors' past performance was unreasonable where (1) with
respect to reports of past performance problems, agency focused on the
absolute number of those problems, without considering, for each offeror,
the number of shipments the offeror had made in the relevant time period;
(2) with respect to past performance problems, contemporaneous evaluation
documents contained no evidence the agency complied with solicitation
instruction to "look for reasons, explanations and clarifications" for past
performance problems; and (3) with respect to past percent on-time delivery,
agency also failed to consider the wide variance in the offerors' shipping
volume over the relevant period.

DECISION

Green Valley Transportation, Inc. protests awards made under request for
proposals (RFP) No. JD-5252-SH, issued by the Department of the Army,
Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), for guaranteed traffic (GT)
freight transportation. Green Valley argues that the agency's evaluation of
technical proposals with respect to past performance was unreasonable.

We sustain the protest.

The solicitation, issued January 25, 2000, sought to allocate cargo traffic
lanes from the Defense Distribution Depot in San Joaquin, California (DDJC)
to various points throughout the continental United States pursuant to the
GT program. [1] Under this program, MTMC issues a request for rate tenders
for all the traffic for particular routes for a specific period of time.
MTMC awards what are, in effect, requirements contracts to the successful
carriers. Allstates Air Cargo, Inc., B-261266, B-261266.2, Feb. 29, 1996,
96-1 CPD para. 138 at 2 n.3. Here, the cargo is allocated into 56 "lanes," each
representing a combination of different equipment types, extent of equipment
use, and destinations. The RFP anticipated the award of 56 contracts, one
for each lane, to be performed between April 29, 2000 and April 28, 2001.
RFP Cover Letter at 1.

Traffic was to be awarded to one primary carrier for each lane of traffic,
with the possibility that alternate carrier selections might be made for
each lane. Each offeror could be selected as a primary carrier or as an
alternate for multiple lanes. RFP encl. 5, at 30. Awards were to be made to
the firms whose proposals were most advantageous to the government,
considering equally important price and technical factors. The solicitation
set forth two technical evaluation factors, past performance and service;
past performance was more important than service. RFP encl. 5, at 27-28. The
past performance factor's two equally important subfactors--past performance
"actions" and past percent on-time delivery--are the only aspects of the
evaluation at issue here. [2] Past performance "actions" were essentially
problems that had arisen during performance, and range from letters of
concern and letters of warning to letters of withdrawal and letters of
removal. [3]

The RFP advised potential offerors that the technical evaluation team (TET)
was to consider an offeror's past performance activity in MTMC's Optimum
Benefit Negotiations, GT programs, and other Department of Defense (DOD)
movements over the last 24 months. All performance actions, including loss
and damage data and on-time delivery reports, were to be considered for the
term of the current GT contracts, to include extensions. If the current GT
contracts were shorter than 12 months, performance actions on the prior
contracts were to be considered. [4] The agency reserved the right to obtain
and use other data pertaining to offerors' past performance in evaluating
proposals. Id. at 28.

The agency received proposals from 36 carriers and conducted its evaluation.
The price evaluation team input the offerors' rates into MTMC's automated
system and arrived at total prices for each offeror for each lane. For each
lane, the low-price offeror received the maximum number of price points, and
all other offerors received prorated points. Traffic Manager's Statement of
Facts para. 5. Since prices varied from lane to lane, the points awarded for
price varied for each offeror from lane to lane. Agency Memorandum of Law at
12 n.40.

In a similar fashion, the TET input such service subfactors as the offerors'
proposed transit times and on-time delivery and refund percentages into
MTMC's system and assigned points on a predetermined basis. Traffic
Manager's Statement of Facts para.para. 7-8. The evaluation of past performance
required a more subjective evaluation. For each proposal, each TET member
assigned ratings of Outstanding, Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or
Unsatisfactory to each past performance subfactor. The TET subsequently
developed "caucus" ratings for each proposal; these ratings were converted
into points. Id. para.para. 9-10. The ratings, and points, assigned to the two past
performance subfactors remained constant for each offeror from lane to lane.
For each proposal, the technical subfactor points were totaled, and the
total was weighted by assigning [DELETED] points to the offeror with the
most technical points and prorating the points for the remaining offerors.
VT at 12:49. The weighted technical ratio was added to the total cost points
to determine the total points for each offeror in each lane. The offeror
with the most total points was ranked as the potential prime carrier, and
alternate positions were identified for those offerors with the next highest
totals. Awards were generally to be made on that basis. [5] Traffic
Manager's Statement of Facts para. 11. All of the proposed awards and evaluation
results were reviewed by an evaluation review panel (ERP) to ensure that all
evaluations were made fairly and consistently. Id. at para. 12.

On April 20, MTMC notified all offerors of the 56 awards, which had a total
value of $14,463,108. Green Valley, whose proposal was rated [DELETED] for
the past performance actions subfactor and [DELETED] for the past percent
on-time delivery subfactor, was awarded contracts as the primary carrier on
8 lanes, and was named an alternate on 28 other lanes. After award, some
primary carriers withdrew and the firm was awarded two additional lanes as
the primary carrier.

In its protest of all of the awards, Green Valley argued that MTMC's past
performance evaluation was faulty. In its comments, the firm specifically
argued that MTMC improperly failed to consider all of the information
available to it when evaluating proposals under the past performance actions
and past percent on-time delivery subfactors, and narrowed its protest to
the six lanes where it believed it was prejudiced by the agency's actions.
[6]

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 reasonably based past performance ratings. However, we will
question such conclusions where they are not reasonably based or are
undocumented. GTS Duratek, Inc., B-280511.2, B-280511.3, Oct. 19, 1998, 98-2
CPD para. 130 at 16; PMT Servs., Inc., B-270538.2, Apr. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 98
at 6. Here, we have reviewed the pleadings, the evaluation materials, the
proposals, and explanations provided by the agency during a hearing
conducted by our Office, and we conclude that MTMC's evaluation of technical
proposals with respect to the two past performance subfactors was
unreasonable.

Past Performance Actions

Each offeror was required to submit copies of any corrective measure it had
taken in response to disciplinary actions against it by the shippers [7] or
MTMC over the relevant time period. This would ensure that any previous
actions indicated in the offeror's performance file had been satisfactorily
addressed. The TET planned to look for reasons, explanations, and
clarifications for previous or current performance actions, such as
withdrawals from awarded lanes as the primary carrier, and corrective
actions on letters of concern, warnings, or suspensions. The TET was to
assess the overall past performance actions, paying particular attention to
those past performance actions and corrective measures that specifically
pertained to DDJC. RFP encl. 6, at 32-33.

In addition to considering the information provided in proposals, the agency
also considered materials it received from DDJC. These included on-time
delivery statistics and DDJC assessments of offeror performance; copies of
performance actions; loss and damage reports; and statistics on shipments
moved by the offerors DOD-wide.

On their individual evaluation forms, the TET members summarized the
[DELETED] negative performance actions received by Green Valley during the
period 1997-99, as well as its [DELETED] letters of appreciation from DDJC.
They also cited DDJC's comment that the firm had [DELETED], and the fact
that Green Valley carried 27,184 shipments for DDJC and 39,441
shipments--approximately 155 million pounds--for DOD overall during the
period 1997-99.

The TET's caucus evaluation form stated that Green Valley's proposal failed
to meet the requirements for this subfactor. The TET stated that the firm
had "numerous performance actions, many of which occurred at DDJC, which
were taken into consideration. Volume of freight handled over past 3 years
was considered. Moderate volume of DDJC shipments was also considered." The
TET rated Green Valley's proposal as [DELETED] for this subfactor.

The Deputy Director of the Joint Traffic Management Office (JTMO), in his
capacity as chair of the ERP, reviewed the evaluation results and raised the
firm's rating from [DELETED] to [DELETED] because he believed that Green
Valley's "past performance problems, [DELETED], and [DELETED] certificates
of appreciation from DDJC, are more consistent with the [DELETED] of the
other carriers. In addition, the letter from DDJC depot was very positive
and carried some weight regarding past performance." AR, Tab 11, at 1.

Green Valley argues that the TET improperly discounted its volume of
shipments in rating its proposal. The protester asserts that it had fewer
negative performance actions relative to its number of shipments than one
offeror with a higher rating and fewer than another offeror with the same
rating. [8] The protester contends that it performed better than either of
those offerors and should have been rated [DELETED] and not [DELETED]. Our
review of the evaluation record shows that the evaluation was unreasonable
in this regard and several others.

First, the record shows that, while the TET "considered" the volume of
freight the offerors carried over the past 3 years, there is no indication
of how that consideration factored into the overall ratings. When asked
about this during the hearing conducted by our Office, the TET chairperson
merely repeated the statements made on the TET's caucus evaluation form for
Green Valley and asserted that the TET felt it gave the right rating. VT at
13:42-44, 52-53. She confirmed the protester's assertion that the TET did
not consider the number of performance actions received by an offeror as a
proportion of the number of shipments it made over the relevant time period.
VT at 13:44.

In our view, it was unreasonable for MTMC to compare the absolute number of
negative performance actions an offeror received, without considering that
number in the context of the number of shipments the offeror had made over
the relevant time period.

The differences between the protester and one of the offerors to which it
refers demonstrate the irrationality of the agency's approach. DOD-wide
statistics for the 3-year period show that Green Valley made 39,441
shipments of approximately 155 million pounds and received [DELETED]
negative performance actions. The other offeror, which was given the same
[DELETED] rating, made only 760 shipments of approximately 12 million pounds
and received [DELETED] negative performance actions. AR, Tab 10 attach. 8;
Agency Post-Hearing Comments at 10 nn.8, 11.

We view it as irrational to focus only on the absolute number of performance
problems and not to take into account the size of the universe of
performance in which those problems occurred. The protester would apparently
have the agency simply calculate the number of negative performance actions
a carrier received as a percentage of its overall number of shipments. Such
a mathematical comparison might be reasonable as a general matter, but it is
inadequate here because the RFP clearly contemplated a reasoned analysis of
the substance of the performance actions that might neutralize any potential
distortions between the carriers. This fact leads directly to the second
problem with the evaluation.

The RFP required the TET to "look for reasons, explanations and
clarifications for previous or current performance actions." RFP, encl. 6,
at 33. During the hearing, the TET chairperson stated that, if a proposal
set forth reasonable justifications for a performance action, the action was
weighed less heavily against the offeror. VT at 14:07. The contemporaneous
evaluation documentation contains no evidence that the TET performed this
reasoned analysis of the past performance information at its disposal. There
is no indication that the performance actions were reviewed to ascertain
whether it was the offeror, rather than the shipper, that was at fault;
whether the offerors had taken corrective actions to resolve problems;
whether certain problems were recurring; or whether inclement weather or
another factor beyond the offerors' control was a factor. In this regard,
while Green Valley's proposal set forth explanations for various performance
actions, none of them appear to have been considered. As to all the
proposals, there is no indication as to which justifications offered, if
any, were considered to be reasonable or which performance actions, if any,
were weighed less heavily against an offeror.

In fact, the record suggests that such a qualitative assessment was not the
basis for the ultimate ratings. The Deputy Director of the JTMO stated
during the hearing that, in his capacity as the chairperson of the ERP, he
considered whether the offerors received a minimal, moderate, or excessive
number of performance actions in reviewing and revising the ratings. He
considered that a minimal number of actions would be zero, one, or perhaps
two, if the second action was not "major"; a moderate number of actions
would be three, four, or five; and actions in the "upper digits" would be
significant. VT at 13:40-41.

His reference to a "major" performance action is the only evidence that a
qualitative assessment was made, and refers to the fact that some
performance actions are considered to be more serious than others. In this
regard, along the spectrum of performance actions, letters of concern are
considered to be minor and letters of warning are considered to be more
critical, followed by withdrawals and, then, removals. VT at 14:06-07.
However, to the extent that the TET did consider the minor or major nature
of the offerors' performance actions, there is no indication in the record
as to how such a consideration related to the ratings. Moreover, the fact
that the TET equated one letter of withdrawal from one lane to one letter of
withdrawal from five lanes, VT at 14:05-09, raises the question whether any
qualitative evaluation that did occur was meaningful.

Overall, MTMC's failure to fully analyze the substance of the past
performance data at the agency's disposal, including the volume of freight
carried, was inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. The
agency's factual assessment of offerors' performance is devoid of the
qualitative analysis that this RFP required, and the agency's approach may
have yielded evaluation results that were distorted by differing levels of
performance. To the extent that the TET performed a qualitative analysis
here, it is not documented. In order for our Office to perform a meaningful
review of an agency's selection determination, an agency is required to have
adequate documentation to support its evaluation of proposals and its
selection decision. Biospherics Inc., B-278508.4 et al., Oct. 6, 1998, 98-2
CPD para. 96 at 4. In the absence of such documentation, we cannot conclude that
the evaluation was reasonable.

Past Percent On-Time Delivery

Each offeror was required to submit a summary of its delivery reports with
DDJC. Offerors without prior shipments from DDJC could submit a summary of
their delivery reports from other DOD, non-DOD government, or commercial
customers. The TET was to evaluate proposals "based on all available
information," giving emphasis to the performance achieved specifically at
DDJC. RFP encl. 6, at 33. The agency considered a [DELETED] percent on-time
rate to be the minimum requirement. VT at 12:53-54.

The record shows that, in evaluating proposals under this subfactor, the TET
reviewed the past percent on-time delivery information set forth in the
offerors' proposals and statistics and comments provided by DDJC. At issue
here is the evaluation of that data with respect to Green Valley and another
carrier. The protester contends that the two offerors had "nearly identical"
past percent on-time delivery rates, but that its proposal was rated
[DELETED] while the other carrier's proposal was rated [DELETED]. Green
Valley argues that its rating should be raised to [DELETED] and/or the other
carrier's rating reduced to [DELETED].

Green Valley's proposal stated that its on-time delivery percentage for
several velocity lanes [9] from DDJC and another depot ranged between
[DELETED] and [DELETED] percent, and noted that it had received an award for
its on-time delivery record for one of those lanes. Protester's Proposal,
Tab 4. Green Valley made no representations as to its on-time delivery
percentage for non-velocity lanes, but statistics provided by DDJC indicated
that the firm delivered 8,621 shipments in 1997 with a [DELETED]-percent
on-time rate; 14,825 shipments in 1998 with a [DELETED]-percent on-time
rate; and 3,738 shipments in 1999 with a [DELETED]-percent on-time rate. AR,
Tab 10, attach. 4. DDJC advised the TET that, under its current contracts,
Green Valley was delivering at [DELETED] percent for velocity lanes and at
[DELETED] percent and above for four other lanes. AR, Tab 10, attach. 5.

The only comment on the TET's caucus evaluation form for Green Valley noted
that DDJC documents reflected an average above the [DELETED]-percent on-time
requirement. The firm's proposal was rated [DELETED] for this subfactor.

The other carrier's proposal stated that, under its prior DDJC GT contract,
it delivered [DELETED] percent of its shipments on time and, under the
current GT contract, it had delivered 172 shipments with a [DELETED]-percent
on-time rate. AR, Tab 9, attach. B. Statistics provided by DDJC showed that
the carrier delivered 169 shipments in 1997 with a [DELETED]-percent on-time
rate; 734 shipments in 1998 with a [DELETED]-percent on-time rate; and 174
shipments in 1999 with a [DELETED]-percent on-time rate. AR, Tab 10,
attach. 4. DDJC advised the TET that, under its current contract, the firm
was delivering at [DELETED] percent. AR, Tab 10, attach. 5.

The TET's caucus evaluation form for the carrier noted the DDJC statistics
for 1997-99 and, referring to a notation on DDJC's monthly on-time
statistics, stated that the low on-time rate for 1997 was due to a
humanitarian project that resulted in increased volume for which the carrier
was not prepared. The TET stated that, since the carrier's on-time rate was
usually [DELETED] percent, its on-time performance would have exceeded the
[DELETED] percent standard without the humanitarian project. The firm's
proposal was rated [DELETED] for this subfactor.

In its comments, Green Valley contended that if the rates for the years
1997-99 are averaged, its on-time delivery rate is [DELETED] percent as
compared with the other carrier's [DELETED] percent. The protester contends
that there was thus no rational basis for rating the two other firm's
performance higher than Green Valley's.

MTMC did average the rates over the years 1997-99 to arrive at an overall
past on-time delivery rate. VT at 13:04, 13:12. By the agency's calculation,
this meant that the protester's average rate was somewhat more than
[DELETED] percent. VT at 13:03-04. Since this rate slightly exceeded the
minimum requirement of [DELETED] percent, Green Valley's proposal received a
[DELETED] rating instead of the [DELETED] rating reserved for proposals
where the response "[DELETED]." VT at 13:03, 22-23; AR, Tab 10, attach. 1.

However, in evaluating the other offeror's proposal, MTMC "set aside" the
firm's low 1997 rate as an anomaly. VT at 14:00-01; 13:12. As noted above,
the TET cited DDJC's comment that the low rate resulted from a humanitarian
project that presented the offeror with unexpected volume. The TET concluded
that, since DDJC said that the offeror normally maintained a [DELETED]
percent on-time rate, the low rate was not representative of the firm's
performance and need not be considered. Instead, the TET averaged the
offeror's remaining on-time rates to obtain a rate of approximately
[DELETED] percent. VT at 13:04, 12, 14:00-01. Since the other offeror's rate
was [DELETED] points above the minimum requirement, it received an [DELETED]
rating. VT at 13:22-23, 56. The [DELETED] rating was reserved for proposals
where the response "[DELETED]." AR, Tab 10, attach. 1.

Green Valley objects that the agency's "setting aside" of the other
offeror's low 1997 rate was improper because the humanitarian project was
only one reason why the carrier's on-time percent delivery rate for the year
was low.

We think that MTMC properly considered the effect of the humanitarian
project on the other offeror's past on-time percent delivery rate, and that
its effort to avoid penalizing the offeror for an unexpected surge in its
requirements that was beyond its control was reasonable. On the other hand,
the protester is correct that the humanitarian project is not the sole
reason for the low rate. The humanitarian project occurred in August and
September 1997 but, prior to that time, the offeror had monthly ratings on
these lanes of [DELETED], [DELETED], and [DELETED] percent. There is no
explanation for these low rates in the record, and we cannot conclude that
it was reasonable for MTMC to ignore them. In its post-hearing comments, the
agency appears to recognize this problem and has calculated the other
offeror's 1997 on-time percent delivery rate absent the humanitarian
projects. Agency's Post-Hearing Comments at 6 n.3. The rate is [DELETED]
percent. Using the agency's methodology of averaging the annual ratings for
the period at issue, the other offeror's rate would be [DELETED] percent,
essentially equal to Green Valley's overall rate ([DELETED] percent).

Moreover, as MTMC acknowledges in its post-hearing comments, the evaluation
was not based on a straight percentage of past on-time deliveries; the RFP's
instruction to consider "all available information" gave the TET the broad
discretion to consider more information than simply straight on-time
delivery percentage rates. In this regard, Green Valley complains that the
TET failed to give it any credit for performing at a high-volume level. The
other offeror's proposal was rated [DELETED] when its on-time rate was
[DELETED] percent for 1,077 shipments over the 3-year period, and Green
Valley's proposal was rated [DELETED] when its on-time rate was [DELETED]
percent for 27,184 shipments over the same 3-year period.

The TET chairperson confirmed that the TET did not consider the volume of
shipments made when evaluating proposals under this subfactor, but went only
by the percentages provided by DDJC. VT at 13:06-07. The Deputy Chief of the
JTMO states that the ERP did consider volume in making the final
determination as to ratings by looking at the volume of shipments to ensure
that an offeror had made enough shipments to show regular service. If the
number of shipments made in a year showed monthly or even weekly service,
the percentages were deemed to be reliable. VT at 13:57. The other offeror's
number of shipments worked out to approximately 100 per month and 25 per
week, and that was deemed to be significant enough to rely on the
percentages. Id. at 13:59-14:00.

While the agency's use of shipping volume in this narrow context is
reasonable, we believe that, in light of the terms of this RFP, the agency's
failure to consider the implications of shipping volume was improper. In our
view, the RFP's explicit instruction to consider "all available information"
included the volume of freight shipped by each offeror. Such consideration
could become particularly important when the vast difference between the
numbers of shipments made by these two offerors may suggest a difference in
the reliability of their past on-time percent delivery rates. See DDD Co.,
B-276708, July 16, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 44 at 5-6 n.4. We do not know if a
consideration of the relative volume of freight carried would have made a
difference here, or that, as a general matter, an on-time percent delivery
rate for an offeror that has shipped a large volume of freight should be
given more credence than the rate of an offeror that has shipped
considerably less freight. It is clear, however, that in this case the
agency did not consider the volume of freight carried by the various
offerors. In its post-hearing comments, MTMC takes one of the lanes on which
Green Valley has performed and argues that the fact the destination point is
near DDJC could mean that its on-time percent delivery rate is inflated.
Agency's Post-Hearing Comments at 8-9. This type of analysis is precisely
that contemplated by the RFP and absent from the contemporaneous
documentation for all of the offerors, including these two.

The record shows that Green Valley might have been in line to receive a
contract as primary carrier, or to be named as the first alternate on the
protested lanes, if the agency had reasonably evaluated technical proposals
under these two subfactors. See Agency Post-Hearing Comments at exh. 1. As a
result, the firm was prejudiced by MTMC's failure to do so. We recommend
that the agency reevaluate the proposals with respect to these two
subfactors. If the reevaluation shows that previously made award decisions
should be revised, the agency should terminate the appropriate contracts at
that time and make award to Green Valley or other appropriate offerors. [10]
We also recommend that the protester be reimbursed the reasonable costs of
filing and pursuing the protest, including attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. sect.
21.8(d)(1). The protester should submit its certified claim for such costs,
detailing the time expended and the costs incurred, directly to the
contracting agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision.

The protest is sustained.

Robert P. Murphy

General Counsel

Notes

1. This procurement is a resolicitation of these requirements following the
termination for convenience of awards made under the prior solicitation. The
termination of the prior awards was the result of corrective action taken in
response to a protest filed in this Office.

2. Green Valley contended that, under the service factor, MTMC should have
analyzed the specific on-time percentage rates and refunds it proposed for
each lane, and not used a constant factor for all lanes. This issue is
untimely. MTMC advised the firm on March 6 that the rates for each lane had
to be the same because the agency's automated system would not accept
different rates. MTMC asked the firm to choose a percentage it would like to
propose and to permit MTMC to make this change on all of its tenders. Green
Valley granted MTMC this permission on March 8. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8.
If Green Valley was concerned with MTMC's evaluation methodology, it was
required to raise this concern prior to the closing date. Bid Protest
Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2000). Given the clear language in its
communications with MTMC on this subject, Green Valley's assertion that it
"understood" MTMC would consider the multiple rates is unpersuasive. In
addition, numerous other issues raised in the protest were addressed by the
agency report and unrebutted in the comments. We deem those issues to have
been abandoned. TMI Servs., Inc., B-276624.2, July 9, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 24 at
4 n.3.

3. A carrier may advise the government by letter that it is withdrawing its
service on a lane or lanes because it is unable or unwilling to do so, and
the government may advise a carrier by letter that it is removing that
carrier from service on a lane or lanes due to various service failures.
MTMC Guaranteed Traffic Rules Publication No. 50, at 1-5, 1-6.

4. Since the current GT contracts were shorter than 12 months, the TET
considered performance actions and on-time delivery reports dating back to
the previously awarded contract, or 1997. Videotape of Hearing (VT) at
12:51.

5. The RFP stated that the government might choose to pay a higher price to
an offeror whose performance risk and price reasonableness gave the
government greater confidence in that offeror's ability to keep its
commitments. RFP encl. 5, at 30.

6. These lanes are 35 (Southwest Sub-Region 1, California); 43 (Northwest
Region, Oregon and Washington); 50 (Fort Carson, Colorado); 51 (Tinker Air
Force Base, Oklahoma); 55 (Travis Air Force Base, California); and 56 (the
Defense Depot at Susquehanna, Pennsylvania). AR, Tab 13.

7. The shipper is the government entity whose freight is being shipped. See
generally RFP encl. 2.

8. We do not agree with Green Valley's assertion that the agency had to give
higher ratings to offerors who had made substantial numbers of shipments for
DDJC. The RFP expressed no preference for shipping experience with DDJC, and
specifically stated that the agency would consider an offeror's past
performance activity in "other DOD movements." RFP encl. 5, at 28.

9. Velocity lanes are those where shipments are made directly from the depot
to an Army installation and must be delivered immediately. VT at 13:26.

10. While the reevaluation may ultimately affect only the six lanes to which
Green Valley limited its protest, the improper evaluation methodology under
these two subfactors extended to all 56 lanes covered by the solicitation
since the ratings and points assigned to the two past performance subfactors
remained constant for each carrier for all lanes bid.