TITLE:  Boland Well Systems, Inc., B-287030, March 7, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287030
DATE:  March 7, 2001
**********************************************************************
Boland Well Systems, Inc., B-287030, March 7, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Boland Well Systems, Inc.

File: B-287030

Date: March 7, 2001

Paul Boland for the protester.

Lt. Col. Joseph V. Treanor, III, and Capt. Brian Varn, Department of the Air
Force, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rated protester's past performance as "neutral with
unknown confidence" where record shows that protester failed to submit in
its proposal required detailed information showing that it had performed
contracts relevant to the solicited effort.

DECISION

Boland Well Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to International
Research and Development, Inc. (IRD) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
F24604-01-D-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the
replacement of livestock gates at the Malmstrom Air Force Base missile
complex in Montana. Boland asserts that the Air Force did not properly
consider its past performance.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract based on a
performance/price tradeoff (PPT) technique. RFP sect. M-2(a). Consistent with
this technique, the RFP provided that all offerors considered for award
would receive a performance risk assessment of exceptional/high confidence,
very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown
confidence, marginal/little confidence, or unsatisfactory/no confidence. The
RFP stated that the purpose of the performance risk assessment was to
identify and review relevant present and past performance and then make an
overall risk assessment of an offeror's ability to perform the effort. The
agency reserved the right to award a contract to other than the offeror
submitting the lowest evaluated price and to award to a higher priced
offeror with a better performance risk rating. The RFP provided that price
and performance risk were equal in weight and that one could be traded off
against the other. The RFP required offerors to submit detailed past
performance information to include aspects of the contract deemed relevant
to the proposed effort; type of contract; and name, address, and telephone
number for the program manager, administrative contracting officer,
procuring contracting officer, and contract manager. RFP sect. L-1000X (b). The
agency reserved the right to make award on the basis of initial proposals
without conducting discussions. RFP sect. L-508(d).

The agency received six proposals including IRD's and Boland's. After
evaluating the proposals, the agency decided to proceed with award on the
basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. Boland submitted
the overall low price. Pricing Memorandum at 2. Boland's past performance
submission contained ten references. Past performance questionnaires were
sent and four responses concerning Boland were received. While the ratings
Boland received from its references ranged from satisfactory to very good,
all of the responses involved contracts that were for landscaping projects
and that were valued significantly less than the government estimate for
this contract of $320,000. Since Boland's prior contracts for landscaping
work showed no relevance to the type of work--gate replacement--required by
the solicitation, Boland's proposal received a rating of neutral/unknown
confidence. [1] Pricing Memorandum at 3.

IRD submitted the second low price. Under the past performance factor, IRD's
proposal received a rating of exceptional/high confidence. The past
performance information submitted by IRD was for the "exact same type of
work required by the solicitation." Pricing Memorandum at 3. Although
Boland's total price was approximately $40,000 less than IRD's, the agency
determined that IRD's proposal represented the best value to the government
based on IRD's exceptional/high confidence past performance rating.
Accordingly, the agency awarded the contract to IRD. Boland requested and
received a debriefing, and then filed an agency-level protest contesting the
selection decision. After the agency denied the protest, Boland filed this
protest with our Office.

Boland asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its past performance.
Specifically, Boland contends that the contracting officer was verbally
advised by Boland prior to award of the company president's experience with
another firm that installed the gates at issue here. Boland also argues that
the simplicity of the removal and reinstallation of the gates should have
been given considerable weight in the evaluation of a firm's ability to
perform the requirement. Boland maintains that any construction or farm
worker could perform gate replacements.

It is not the function of our Office to evaluate past performance
information de novo. Rather, we examine an agency's evaluation only to
ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation
criteria and applicable statutes and regulations, since determining the
relative merit of an offeror's past performance information is primarily a
matter within the contracting agency's discretion. Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft
Support, B-277263.2, B-277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 91 at 5.

Notwithstanding the protester's argument that Boland verbally advised the
contracting officer of its president's experience in installing the gates,
the record shows that although required by the RFP to do so, the protester
failed to establish in its proposal or through its past performance
references that it had actual experience installing gates. The record shows
that the prior contracts listed by Boland to establish past performance were
all landscaping projects. In our view, the agency reasonably concluded that
the landscaping contracts were not relevant to the current requirement for
gate replacements. Further, the agency reports that prior to award the
cognizant agency official attempted to verify the company president's prior
gate installation experience under a prior contract. The agency advises that
the agency official could not find that individual's name in the employment
records for contracts awarded by the base for gate installation. Response to
Protest at 4.

In sum, Boland simply did not provide in its proposal or at any time during
the conduct of the procurement evidence establishing that the company had
relevant past performance. While the protester argues that the requirement
is simple and that any construction worker could perform it, the
solicitation specifically advised offerors that award would be based on the
PPT technique and that a performance risk assessment would be performed to
identify and review relevant present and past performance in order to make
an overall risk assessment of an offeror's ability to perform the
requirement. In accordance with the solicitation, the agency performed a
performance/price tradeoff and determined that the higher priced proposal of
IRD, which had a better performance risk rating than the protester,
represented the best value to the government. On this record, we have no
basis to question the agency's evaluation of proposals or source selection
decision.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel

Notes

1. Under Federation Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iv), where an
offeror does not have a record of relevant past performance, the offeror may
not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably.