TITLE:  JGB Enterprises, Inc., B-291432, December 9, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-291432
DATE:  December 9, 2002
**********************************************************************
JGB Enterprises, Inc., B-291432, December 9, 2002

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:    JGB Enterprises, Inc.
    
File:             B-291432
    
Date:              December 9, 2002
    
Nancy M. Camardo, Esq., and Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., Esq., for the
protester.
Robert F. Nelson for Angus Fire Armour Corp., the intervenor. 
Mary E. Carney, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest that agency improperly evaluated the protester's past performance
is denied where the agency has provided a reasonable explanation for its
evaluation and the protester has failed to rebut it. 
DECISION
    
JGB Enterprises, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order by UNICOR
(Federal Prison Industries) to Angus Fire Armour Corp. (AFAC) under
request for quotations (RFQ) No. VC0038-02, for two commercial items,
nonmetallic hose assemblies and clamp pipe couplings.  JGB protests the
evaluation of its past performance. 
    
We deny the protest.
    
The RFQ contemplated the award of a 3-year fixed-price
indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract.  The RFQ specified that
the technical and price factors, when combined, were equal in importance
to past performance.  Selection was to be based on identification of the
responsible vendor whose quotation, conforming to the RFQ, was *most
advantageous to the Government.*  RFP S: M.1(a).
    
The RFQ required that each vendor identify at least three contracts
performed in the last 3 to 5 years similar in scope to this RFQ
requirement.  Vendors were required to provide a reference for each
contract listed. 
    
The agency received quotations from JGB and AFAC by the due date.  The
contracting officer contacted three references for each vendor.  The
contracting officer asked each reference a series of questions and asked
each reference to rate the vendor's performance as either excellent, good,
marginal, poor or neutral.  Because all three of AFAC's references rated
its performance *excellent,* it received a perfect score for past
performance.  Because two of JGB's references rated the vendor's
performance as *excellent* and one rated it as *good,* JGB received a
somewhat lower score for past performance. 
    
The person that gave JGB a good rating for its past performance was not
the reference named in JGB's quotation for a Fort Lee contract because the
named reference had retired.  Instead, this rating came from the Director
of Contracting at Fort Lee, who also provided narrative comments and
responded to specific questions regarding JGB's performance on the
referenced contract.
    
This past performance evaluation was the only evaluated technical
difference between the quotations.  While JGB's quotation was slightly
lower priced, the agency determined that AFAC's quotation represented the
best value and selected that firm.  This protest followed. 
    
JGB contests the *good* rating that it received from the Fort Lee
reference, arguing that it should have received an *excellent* rating. 
JGB contends that the rating is flawed because the reference had no
personal knowledge of JGB's past performance, as evidenced by his
statement that a problem existed with Item 1012.  JGB contends that this
was a misstatement because there was no reference to an Item 1012 for this
contract.  While JGB acknowledges that there was a problem with one of the
products under this contract, it alleges that this problem was due to the
government's ambiguous specification. 
    
The agency responds that the Director of Contracting at Fort Lee
specifically stated that he had personal knowledge of JGB's contract
performance at Fort Lee, and states that the reference to Item 1012 was
not a misstatement but was a reference to an *internal identification
number* used by Fort Lee concerning an item that was *a similar or like
project to the hoses that are the subject of this procurement.* 
Supplemental Statement of the Contracting Officer at 1.  As JGB has not
taken issue with the agency's explanation, and as the actions of the
agency appear reasonable, we conclude that there was nothing improper
concerning the past performance evaluation of JGB's proposal.  Chicataw
Constr., Inc., B‑289592, B-289592.2, Mar. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 62
at 4-5. 
    
In any event, we disagree with the protester's contention that a closer
investigation to independently establish the validity of the statements of
the Director of Contracting was required here.  Where vendors are required
to list prior experience and are aware that the source of this experience
may be contacted, the contracting agency may generally contact these
sources, including individuals who were not named by the vendors as
references for the claimed experience, and consider their replies without
further investigation into the accuracy of the information.  Black &
Veatch Special Projects Corp., B-279492.2, June 26, 1998, 98‑1 CPD
P: 173 at 8 (where named reference was intentionally not contacted by the
agency as a reference in favor of the project engineer that the agency
believed had complete and relevant information about the protester's
performance).       
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel