TITLE:  Sterling Services, Inc., B-286326, December 11, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-286326
DATE:  December 11, 2000
**********************************************************************
Sterling Services, Inc., B-286326, December 11, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Sterling Services, Inc.

File: B-286326

Date: December 11, 2000

Walter Bull for the protester.

Lt. Col. LeEllen Coacher, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably determined protester's past performance deserved a "very
good" rating, based on the references in the protester's proposal, rather
than the "exceptional" rating the protester asserted it deserved.

DECISION

Sterling Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Northwest
Florida Facilities Management, Inc. (NFFM) under request for proposals (RFP)
No. F08637-00-R-7007, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for
transient aircraft services for Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Florida.

We deny the protest.

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period
of 1 year with four 1-year options. The successful contractor is required to
provide all personnel, equipment, tools, supervision and other items
required to perform the transient aircraft services. RFP at 2-4.

Offerors were informed that the agency would utilize a "Technically
Acceptable-Performance/Price Tradeoff (TA-PPT) source selection procedure"
to select the proposal that represented the best value to the government.
RFP at 23. The RFP explained that under the TA-PPT procedure, the proposals
would be evaluated for technical acceptability under the staffing/equipment
and quality control plan evaluation criteria, and that the proposals would
be evaluated under the past performance criterion as either exceptional/high
confidence, very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence,
neutral/unknown confidence, marginal/little confidence, or unsatisfactory/no
confidence. RFP at 23-24. The RFP stated that in determining which
technically acceptable proposal represented the best value to the
government, past performance would be "considered significantly more
important than price." RFP at 23. The RFP also advised offerors that,
although the agency reserved the right to conduct discussions if necessary,
it planned to make award on the basis of initial proposals. RFP at 20.

The RFP (at 22) included instructions for the preparation of proposals,
requesting, among other things, that offerors

[s]ubmit past performance information . . . that is relevant for the last
three years. Include past performance history and experience on contracts of
this type and magnitude with the government and/or commercial market. All
available information pertaining specifically to these criteria should be
included, as well as any other information the offeror feels would
demonstrate their ability to accomplish this project.

The agency received 11 proposals by the RFP's closing date and evaluated 6
of
the proposals, including those submitted by Sterling and NFFM, as
technically acceptable. Sterling's proposal was rated as "very
good/significant confidence" under the past performance criterion at a
proposed price of $1,704,144, and NFFM's proposal was rated as
"exceptional/high confidence" under the past performance criterion at a
proposed price of $1,739,498. Agency Report, Tab 4, Proposal Evaluation
Report.

The contracting officer found that NFFM's proposal represented the best
value to the government, noting that NFFM was "performing exceptionally on
current TA [transient aircraft] service contracts" at three other Air Force
bases, and that because of this, "essentially no doubt exists that [NFFM]
will successfully perform the required effort." The contracting officer
added that, although NFFM's price was 2 percent higher than Sterling's
low-priced proposal, the "superior past performance of the higher priced
offeror outweighs the small cost difference." Id.

Sterling (the incumbent contractor) argues that the agency's evaluation of
its past performance was unreasonable, contending that its past performance
should have been evaluated as "exceptional/high confidence." Protest at 2.
According to the protester, Tyndall AFB personnel have rated Sterling's past
performance as "exceptional" on a number of occasions when contacted by
other contracting activities. Protest at 2; Comments at 1.

The evaluation of past performance is a matter within the discretion of the
contracting agency. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of past performance,
we will not reevaluate proposals, but instead will examine the agency's
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation. Acepex Management Corp., B-283080 et al., Oct. 4, 1999, 99-2
CPD para. 77 at 3.

Sterling's proposal included information on transient aircraft services
contracts performed at Tinker, Tyndall, Anderson, and Seymour Johnson AFBs.
This section of Sterling's proposal included relevant points of contact,
Sterling's summary of the contracts' requirements, and completed Contractor
Performance Assessment Reports (CPAR) for the Tinker, Tyndall, and Anderson
AFB contracts that were signed by the relevant agency representatives and
Sterling's president. These CPARs included a table that set forth various
areas for evaluation (such as "quality of product/service"), under which
Sterling received ratings ranging from "very good" to "exceptional" with
regard to Tyndall and Tinker AFBs, and "satisfactory" to "very good" with
regard to Anderson AFB. Sterling commented in this section of its proposal
that "the past performance of the above-referenced Contracts should be
evaluated at the ‘Very Good/Significant Confidence' rating based on
the definition that the offeror's performance record indicates that there is
little doubt that the offeror will successfully perform the required
effort." Agency Report, Tab 8, Sterling Proposal, Past Performance
Information.

The agency forwarded "past/present evaluation" forms to Tinker, Tyndall,
Anderson, and Seymour Johnson AFBs as part of its evaluation of Sterling's
proposal under the past performance criterion. These forms listed 12 areas
(such as "Contractor's quality of work") on which Sterling's performance was
to be rated as exceptional, very good, satisfactory, neutral, marginal, or
unsatisfactory. Agency Report, Tab 9, Sterling's Past Performance Surveys.

Sterling received ratings of "very good" under all 12 areas of evaluation
from Tinker AFB, and "very good" or "exceptional" under the 12 areas from
Tyndall AFB. The record does not contain a survey response from Anderson
AFB, and Seymour Johnson AFB, while providing some positive comments
regarding Sterling's performance, declined to evaluate Sterling because the
firm had been performing the relevant contract for only a few months. Id.

Based upon the record here, we have no basis upon which to find unreasonable
the agency's evaluation of Sterling's past performance as "very good" rather
than "exceptional." The record reflects that Sterling's past performance
received ratings that primarily ranged from "very good" to "exceptional"
from Sterling's references, and that the ratings set forth on the CPARs
provided by Sterling in its proposal ranged from "satisfactory" to
"excellent." Although Sterling may be correct that Tyndall AFB has recently
evaluated Sterling's past performance as "excellent" when contacted by other
contracting activities, the record also includes CPARs dated within the last
3 years that were prepared by Tyndall AFB and signed by Sterling's president
that evaluate Sterling's performance as ranging from "marginal" to "very
good," with most of the areas being rated as "satisfactory."

The protester complains that it "was not notified . . . that there was any
problem with [its] past performance at Seymour Johnson AFB," and that this
should have been raised with Sterling during discussions. Protest at 2. This
contention is premised on a flawed factual assumption. The record does not
support the protester's view that there was any "problem" with its
performance at Seymour Johnson AFB that needed to be addressed. Rather, the
record reflects that Seymour Johnson AFB was pleased with the protester's
performance, but declined to complete the past performance evaluation form
because, as noted above, Sterling had been performing the relevant contract
for only a few months. Accordingly, we find that this contention is without
merit.

The protester contends that the agency determination to award the contract
to NFFM based upon its higher-rated, higher-priced proposal was
unreasonable. We disagree. As explained above, there is no reason to object
to the agency's evaluation of NFFM's proposal as "exceptional/high
confidence" and Sterling's proposal as "very good/significant confidence"
under the past performance evaluation criterion. Given that the RFP stated
that the past performance would be "considered significantly more important
than price" in determining which proposal represented the best value to the
government, and the reasonable explanation in the agency's award selection
document as to why NFFM's higher-rated proposal was worth its slightly
higher price, Sterling's contentions here provide no basis for overturning
the award determination. Matrix Int'l Logistics, Inc., B-277208; B-277208.2,
Sept. 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 94 at 14.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel