TITLE:  Sunbelt Design & Development, Inc., B-291490; B-291490.2, January 2, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-291490; B-291490.2
DATE:  January 2, 2003
**********************************************************************
Sunbelt Design & Development, Inc., B-291490; B-291490.2, January 2, 2003

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective      
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.        

   Decision
    
Matter of:   Sunbelt Design & Development, Inc.
    
File:            B-291490; B-291490.2
    
Date:              January 2, 2003
    
Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Law Office of Theodore M. Bailey, for the
protester.
John D. Inazu, Esq., and Paul S. Davison, Esq., Department of the Air
Force, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest of the agency's evaluation of the protester's and the awardee's
past performance is denied, where the protester does not demonstrate that
the agency's evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the
solicitation evaluation criteria.
DECISION
    
Sunbelt Design & Development, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
Boneal, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09603-02-R-72053,
issued by the Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics
Center (WRALC), for MD-1 universal towbars.  Sunbelt contends that the
evaluation of past performance was inconsistent with the terms of the
solicitation and otherwise unreasonable.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The solicitation, issued June 28, 2002, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price requirements contract for a base year with 2 option years to
provide an estimated quantity of towbars to satisfy the Air Force and
Foreign Military Sales requirements.  Offerors were advised that the
agency would conduct a performance/price trade-off to make an integrated
assessment for a *best value* award decision.  Under this procedure, a
trade-off would be made between the offerors' present/past
performance and price, with past performance significantly more important
than price.[1]  RFP at 27. 
    
As relevant here, in the past performance information volume of its
proposal, each offeror was required to provide information for itself and
each proposed *critical* subcontractor:
    
for each active or completed contract (with preferably at least one year
of performance history) in the past three (3) years, that the offeror
considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed
effort.  If the total number of such contracts exceeds four (4), the
offeror shall address its four (4) most relevant contracts.
RFP at 25.  For each listed contract, the solicitation required the
offeror to send an attached past performance questionnaire to
knowledgeable sources for return to the agency for itself and each
proposed critical subcontractor.  The solicitation generally indicated
that relevant present/past performance could be for any federal, state and
local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers having a
performance period completion not earlier than 3 years from the RFP
release date.  In addition, the agency planned to evaluate the complexity
and magnitude of the offeror's previous and current work and its relation
to the work required for this procurement.  Id.
    
As applicable here, the RFP evaluation criteria provided that the
following relevance criteria apply:  very relevant (present/past
performance involved the magnitude of effort and complexities which was
essentially what solicitation requires); relevant (present/past
performance involved less magnitude of effort and complexities and
includes most of what solicitation requires); semi-relevant (present/past
performance involved much less magnitude of effort and complexities and
includes some of what solicitation requires); not relevant (present/past
performance did not involve any significant aspects of above).  RFP at 28.
    
The Air Force received seven proposals by the extended closing date,
including those from Sunbelt and Boneal (because the other proposals are
not relevant to this decision, we do not address them further).  The
proposals were forwarded to the appropriate evaluation teams.  In
evaluating offerors' proposals under past performance, the agency's
Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) obtained information from a
variety of sources--information provided by offerors in their proposals
regarding the type of contracts performed, information from the past
performance questionnaire responses with follow-up interviews with the
references as necessary, information from the government's Mechanization
of Contract Administration System (MOCAS) on current workload and workload
for the past 12 months, and information available from the Contractor
Performance Assessment Reports (CPAR).  Agency Report (AR), exh. 12, PRAG
Report, and exh. 14, Source Selection Decision.  The PRAG initially
discussed how to evaluate the relevance of each offeror's past performance
and memorialized its evaluation approach as follows:
    
As discussed in our first meeting, the items do not have to be towbars or
trailers specifically in order to be relevant or very relevant items as
this would restrict competition and would not meet the requirement of the
solicitation.  We need to concentrate on the similarity of processes that
might be used to produce an item.  For example, towbar and trailers would
be considered relevant if the quantities delivered and contract value meet
the definition of relevancy.  However, other end items . . . should be
reviewed to see how they are manufactured to see if they are relevant to
the similar processes of the towbar.
AR, exh. 11, PRAG Evaluation Worksheets at 2.
    
Sunbelt submitted references for six contracts, and the agency received
past performance responses from four contract references.  The PRAG
considered only one of these contracts, with WRALC for multiple aircraft
trailers, to be very relevant and the contract reference rated the
protester's performance evenly between *exceptional* and *very good.* 
Three of the remaining five contracts were considered relevant--a contract
with WRALC for aircraft engine trailers (past performance reference
responses were predominately *very good,* with one *exceptional* and one
*satisfactory*), a WRALC contract for control consoles (reference
responses were all *very good*), and an Army contract for another type of
towbar (questionnaire responses were all *exceptional*).  A Kelly Air
Force Base contract for B-52 aircraft hoist assemblies was considered
semi-relevant because its level of complexity was much less than that
required under the solicitation (no questionnaire responses received; when
contacted, the reference stated she lacked information necessary to
complete the questionnaire) and a contract for an hydraulic lift trailer
was considered not relevant (only the first article had been completed). 
From these references, including favorable narrative comments and
information obtained from other government sources, Sunbelt's past
performance was assigned a *very good/significant confidence* rating.  AR,
exh. 12, PRAG Report at 28-31; exh. 8, Protester's Past Performance
Information and Questionnaires.
    
As for Boneal, six contracts with the corresponding contract references
responses formed the basis for its *very good/significant confidence* past
performance rating.  Five of the six contracts that Boneal submitted as
evidence of its past performance were found to be relevant (DELETED). 
Boneal's WRALC contract for precision-machined components was considered
semi-relevant (because it involved much less effort and complexity).  In
determining the relevance of Boneal's contracts, the evaluators
specifically noted that the type of manufacturing processes required under
most of Boneal's contracts was similar to the type of processes needed for
production of the towbar.  For example, Boneal's contract to manufacture
towpins to be utilized in mail transportation equipment nationwide was
considered relevant by the PRAG because the *effort involves procurement
of seamless tubing and the incorporation of various sawing, drilling, and
welding operations . . . machining, welding, mechanical assembly, and
finished goods packaging are similar to the processes required . . . of
the towbar . . . including most of what this solicitation requires.*  AR,
exh. 12, PRAG Report at 6-7.  The past performance questionnaire responses
received by the agency were divided equally between *very good* and
*exceptional,* and the narrative comments evidenced that Boneal's
performance
was very good.  Id. at 5-9; exh. 9, Awardee's Past Performance Information
and Questionnaires. 
    
In sum, Boneal and Sunbelt (and certain other offerors) were assigned
identical performance ratings.  As for price, Boneal proposed a price of
$4,825,985, while Sunbelt proposed a price of (DELETED).  AR, exh. 14,
Source Selection Decision
at 3.
    
After reviewing the findings of the PRAG and the price evaluation teams,
the contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority,
determined that Boneal's proposal represented the best overall value to
the government based on its *very good/significant confidence* rating and
low price as compared to Sunbelt and the other offerors whose proposals
received the same confidence assessment at higher prices.  AR, exh. 14,
Source Selection Decision, at 2.  On September 26, the
Air Force awarded a contract to Boneal.  After receiving notice of the
award and a debriefing, Sunbelt filed this protest with our Office.
    
Sunbelt first challenges the past performance evaluation, alleging that
the agency rated its past performance unreasonably low given its *past
excellent and directly related experience.*  Protest at 6.  More
specifically, the protester maintains that the *very good/significant
confidence* rating does not accurately reflect that Sunbelt *has actually
successfully manufactured the very item being solicited,* nor does it
recognize the differences in the types of work performed by Sunbelt as
opposed to Boneal.  Id.; Protester's Comments at 3.
    
The evaluation of past performance is a matter within the discretion of
the contracting agency, which our Office will review only to ensure that
the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation
criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  Sterling Servs., Inc.,
B-286326, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 208 at 2-3.  A 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.  Champion Serv. Corp.,
B-284116, Feb. 22, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 28 at 4.  As discussed below, the
record provides no basis to object to the evaluation of the offerors' past
performance.
    
As to the agency's evaluation of Sunbelt's past performance, the record
shows that the evaluators specifically credited the firm for performance
of its multiple aircraft trailer contract, which was considered a very
relevant contract.  The protester's performance under this contract,
however, was not rated exceptional overall
(as noted above, the questionnaire responses for this contract were evenly
split between *exceptional* and *very good*).  While Sunbelt apparently
expected a higher rating, it does not assert that any of the underlying
past performance information received by the agency was erroneous or that
the evaluators' overall past performance rating for Sunbelt based upon
this information was unreasonable.  Indeed, Sunbelt has presented
nothing--besides its own view of its performance--to establish that the
agency's past performance assessment was unreasonable.  Under these
circumstances, we find no basis in this record to conclude that Sunbelt
would be entitled to a higher past performance rating; Sunbelt's mere
disagreement with the agency's evaluation judgment does not render the
evaluation unreasonable.
    
Sunbelt next protests the past performance ratings assigned to Boneal's
proposal on the basis that the awardee's identified present/past contracts
were limited to providing equipment that did not involve the production of
an aircraft towbar, aircraft trailer, or any other form of ground support
equipment.  In addition, the protester disputes the agency's evaluation
findings that Boneal's present/past contracts involved processes similar
to that required by the solicitation, since none of the awardee's listed
contracts involved manufacturing large, heavy mechanical assemblies such
as that which makes up the MD-1 towbar.  Protester's Comments at 2.  Thus,
Sunbelt argues, Boneal lacks any directly relevant experience and it was
therefore unreasonable for the agency to assign Boneal's proposal the same
overall *very good/significant confidence* rating as that assigned to its
own proposal.  Protest at 6.
    
This argument is without merit.  The proposals properly were rated against
the RFP's evaluation provisions, not against each other.  The solicitation
did not require that an offeror's past/present contracts concern the
precise requirement being solicited here, i.e., an MD-1 towbar.  Rather,
as discussed previously, the RFP provided that the agency would assign
ratings of either *very relevant,* *relevant,* *semi-relevant* or *not
relevant* to the firms' past performance based on the similarity of the
past and current contracts reviewed to the work to be performed under this
RFP, thereby establishing a less stringent standard.  The PRAG reasonably
examined the past performance contract information to determine if the
contract end items were manufactured in a manner similar to the solicited
towbars.  Thus, the PRAG's past performance evaluation of proposals was
consistent with the stated RFP evaluation scheme.  Our review of the
record, including Boneal's proposal and the past performance
questionnaires completed by its references, confirms that Boneal has not
performed a contract for an MD-1 towbar.  However, the agency found that
the description of the work performed under five of Boneal present/past
contracts established that the products and services involved processes
similar to those needed to manufacture an item like the towbar.  The
record further indicates that the agency's evaluators considered the
magnitude and complexity of these contracts in making its relevance
determinations.  Given the past performance information provided in
Boneal's proposal, in conjunction with the favorable past performance
questionnaire responses and ratings from the references, we find
reasonable the agency assigning Boneal a *very good/significant
confidence* rating for past performance, the same rating assigned to
Sunbelt.
    
In challenging the PRAG's evaluation, Sunbelt relies on more restrictive
language contained in the PRAG report which defined relevance as either: 
very relevant, where the work involved producing any large aircraft towbar
or another similar item for ground support equipment with a dollar
magnitude workload in excess of $1 million; relevant, where the dollar
magnitude workload was between $100,000 and $1 million for manufacturing
any towbar or trailer or similar manufacturing processes for ground
support equipment; semi-relevant, where the past performance only included
similar manufacturing processes and a dollar magnitude workload under
$100,000.  However, this more restrictive definition was not contained in
the RFP and clearly was not the basis for evaluation of the competing
offerors' past performance, which the record shows involved the PRAG's
assessment of the similarity of offerors' past performance to the
manufacture of the solicited requirements.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1]Past performance was to be assigned a narrative rating of
*exceptional/high confidence,* *very good/significant confidence,*
*satisfactory/confidence,* *neutral/unknown confidence,* *marginal/little
confidence,* *unsatisfactory/no confidence.*  RFP at 28-29.