TITLE:  Honolulu Shipyard, Inc., B-291760, February 11, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-291760
DATE:  February 11, 2003
**********************************************************************
Honolulu Shipyard, Inc., B-291760, February 11, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Honolulu Shipyard, Inc.
    
File:            B-291760
    
Date:              February 11, 2003
    
Bruce A. Young for the protester.
Kelly M. Calahan, Esq., Katherine A. Andrias, Esq., and Dawn M. Gingerich,
Esq., Department of the Navy, 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
    
Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal
with respect to past performance is denied where the record shows that the
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated
evaluation criteria.
DECISION
    
Honolulu Shipyard, Inc. (HSI) protests the award of a contract to Marisco,
Ltd., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62791-02-R-0093, issued by
the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, to obtain
miscellaneous topside and interior repairs to the Barge YRBM-52.  HSI
argues that the Navy's evaluation of its past performance was
unreasonable.
    
We deny the protest.
    
On July 16, 2002, the Navy's Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and
Repair, (SUPSHIP) in San Diego, California issued this solicitation to
obtain miscellaneous topside and interior repairs on the Barge YRBM-52 at
the contractor's facility in Hawaii.  The solicitation contemplated the
award of a fixed-price contract for these services over a performance
period of approximately 6 months.  RFP at 13(r1).  Award was to be made to
the firm whose proposal represented the best value to the government,
considering two evaluation factors, past performance and price.  The past
performance factor was approximately equal in importance to the price
factor, with the former being more important than the latter.  Id. at 32. 
The past performance factor was comprised of three equally important
subfactors:  technical (quality of product), schedule, and management. 
Id. at 31-32.
To evaluate offerors' past performance, the Navy intended to review
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings[1] and
other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts.  Id. at
29.  The RFP stated that the Navy might also review other relevant past
performance information contained in local or other SUPSHIP files, or from
other government sources, and would consider general trends in a
contractor's performance.  Id. at 29.
    
Each offeror had the opportunity to provide, in its proposal, any
information regarding its past performance of contracts similar to the
government's requirement that it would like the government to consider,
including additional information the government has readily available,
such as data in the CPARS system; information the offeror considers
essential to the government's evaluation of its past performance; or
explanatory information of substandard or poor performance and the
corrective actions taken to prevent a recurrence.  Id. at 29r.
    
The RFP stated that the past performance factor would be evaluated, using
the above information, to determine the contractor's performance risk.  To
determine the relevance of the past performance information, the agency
planned to give greater consideration to contracts requiring the same or
similar type and complexity of work as that required by the solicitation. 
The agency would consider an offeror's past performance of the following
types of contracts/work to be *most relevant*:  fixed-price contracts for
similar berthing barges undergoing overhauls, with work that included
tanks, additional decks, bulkheads, piping, electrical, and air
conditioning.  Id. at 31.  Other types of contracts or work that did not
meet the *most relevant* definition might be considered, as well, if
aspects of the past performance were deemed to have some bearing on the
expected performance of the solicitation's requirements.  Finally, the
agency would also consider trends showing improving or deteriorating
performance.  Id.
    
The Navy received and evaluated offers from Marisco and HSI, conducted
discussions, and received final proposal revisions (FPR) from both firms
on November 8.  On November 12, the past performance evaluation team
(PPET) convened to evaluate each offeror's past performance.  For Marisco,
the PPET considered the available CPARS data as well as additional
information the firm had provided in its proposal.  Since HSI did not
submit any additional past performance information in its proposal, the
PPET considered the firm's available CPARS ratings and other past
performance information in its files.  The PPET did not identify any
significant negative information in either offeror's past performance that
they had not had the opportunity to address, and had no further
communications with either offeror.  The PPET evaluated Marisco's proposal
as satisfactory under each of the past performance subfactors, and
satisfactory overall.  The PPET evaluated HSI's proposal as very good
under the technical subfactor, satisfactory under the remaining two
subfactors, and satisfactory overall.  The PPET forwarded its report to
the best value advisory committee (BVAC) on November 15. 
    
On November 19, the BVAC convened to determine its recommendation for
award and concurred with the PPET's findings.  In a detailed report, the
BVAC concluded that, with both offerors rated satisfactory overall in past
performance, it was expected that either would perform successfully.  The
BVAC found that Marisco's price of $7,618,379 was $715,065 lower than that
of HSI, which the BVAC deemed to be a significant amount, and recommended
that Marisco be awarded the contract as offering the best value to the
government. 
    
In a detailed source selection decision, the source selection authority
(SSA) noted that Marisco's ratings were based on the PPET's analysis of
six of the firm's projects, one of which was considered to be more
relevant than the others and given more weight.  She stated that the CPARS
data associated with that contract rated Marisco's performance as marginal
in each of subfactors at issue here, but that on the rest of the contracts
forming the basis of Marisco's evaluation, the firm's performance was
rated as very good.  The SSA explained that Marisco's overall rating of
satisfactory here was based on its performance of work of a similar nature
but on a smaller scale, and that the contracts considered by the PPET were
a fair indicator of Marisco's likely success because the corresponding
CPARS assessed the firm's performance parameters on work similar to that
required by the current solicitation.  She added that Marisco's most
recent contracts reflected very good ratings, demonstrating a positive
performance trend.
    
The SSA noted that HSI's ratings were based on the PPET's analysis of the
CPARS data for 14 projects, and that greater consideration was given to
the firm's work on the YR-46 Barge--a project deemed *most relevant* by
the PPET--because it contained work items similar to those required here. 
The SSA explained that the CPARS data associated with this project rated
HSI's performance as very good in the technical area and marginal in the
schedule and management areas, but stated that on all of the rest of the
contracts considered HSI's performance was rated as satisfactory or
better.  The SSA stated that these other contracts contained work of
sufficient similarity to the current solicitation to be considered
relevant for this review.
    
The SSA agreed with the BVAC that either offeror would perform
satisfactorily here and, since Marisco's price of $7,618,379 was $863,122
(10.2 percent) lower than HSI's price of $8,481,501, the SSA determined
that Marisco's proposal offered the best value to the government.  Award
was made on December 2, and HSI filed this protest after its debriefing. 
In support of its general argument that the Navy conducted an incomplete
and inconsistent evaluation of its past performance, HSI makes several
specific allegations concerning the Navy's decision not to consider
several of its projects in its evaluation.[2]
    
The evaluation of past performance is a matter within the discretion of
the contracting agency, which our Office will review only to ensure that
it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and
with procurement statutes and regulations.  Sterling Servs., Inc.,
B-286326, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD
P: 208 at 203.  Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of offerors'
past performance, an agency has the discretion to determine the scope of
the offerors' performance histories to be considered, provided all
proposals are evaluated on the same basis and consistent with the
solicitation requirements.  IGIT, Inc., B-275299.2, June 23, 1997, 97-2
CPD P: 7 at 5.  Our review of the record shows that the agency's past
performance evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation's requirements.
    
The record shows that the PPET began its work by reviewing the
solicitation to ascertain the work requirements.  The PPET then reviewed
the information provided in the offerors' proposals, as well as prior
contracts that were included in the CPARS reporting system for both
offerors.  As the chair of the PPET explains, and as the PPET report
shows, based upon the RFP's *most relevant* definition, the PPET
determined that HSI's work on the YR-46 Barge was *most relevant* because
the work identified in the current solicitation closely matched the work
index for that project.  The PPET also reviewed HSI's work on various
other projects.  The PPET found HSI's work on 13 of those projects to be
relevant and considered the associated CPARS data and performance trends
in evaluating the firm's proposal.  The PPET found that HSI's work on
several other projects did not substantially match the work required under
the current solicitation in either size or scope, and did not consider the
firm's performance on these projects in evaluating the firm's proposal. 
The PPET went through the same process in evaluating the past performance
of Marisco.  The PPET's analysis is supported by a detailed narrative
report and contemporaneous evaluation documents.  In our view, HSI's
allegation that the Navy lacked a rational method for evaluating past
performance is not supported by the record.
    
HSI specifically alleges that the Navy improperly determined that its work
on the USS Lake Erie was not relevant and, therefore, that the firm's past
performance data associated with that work would not be considered.
    
The PPET chair explains that the PPET examined the relevance of HSI's work
on four orders involving repairs and refurbishment to the USS Lake Erie
and ascertained that the work was not sufficiently analogous to be
considered relevant for purposes of the evaluation.  She states that HSI's
work on Order 00-14H involved galley steam kettle conversion, and its work
on Order 01-02H pertained only to weight and moment compensation, neither
of which were included in or related to any portion of the work
anticipated under the current solicitation.  The PPET chair further states
that, as part of Orders 0003 and 0001, HSI performed no tank, electrical
or air conditioning work, all of which were integral to the contemplated
work on the YRBM-52.  Since the PPET did not consider this work to be
relevant, it did not consider the past performance information associated
with this project.  PPET Chair's Declaration P: 7.
    
HSI argues that, under Order 0001, a work item for cooling skid
preservation required piping and electrical work, and a work item for fan
room and vent ducting required vent ducting or air conditioning work.  HSI
also argues that several requests for change orders included air
conditioning work.  However, a review of the CPARS data for this order
does not include any such details.  The description of the work required
under the order is simply noted as miscellaneous structural repairs,
inspection of the main mast, preservation of the cooling skid,
preservation of the shaft alley, fan room and vent ducting repairs and
preservation, and preservation of the helicopter hanger.  While HSI argues
that the PPET should have known these details because the contracting
agency is the same one that administered this contract, there is no
evidence that the PPET had first-hand knowledge of these details, and the
solicitation's terms did not obligate the PPET to make inquiries beyond
the CPARS data.   
    
In any event, the fact that the CPARS data shows that the dollar value of
these work items was very low indicates that any included tasks similar to
this solicitation's work requirements were relatively small in size and
scope.  As a result, we have no basis to object to the Navy's
determination that this project did not contain work of *sufficient
relevancy* to provide an indication of potential performance on the
current solicitation.[3]  PPET Report at 3.  HSI has not shown that the
agency's consideration of its performance under this project, which has,
at best, limited similarity to the current solicitation's work
requirements, would have warranted a different overall evaluation result. 
See Day & Zimmermann Pantex Corp., B-286016 et al., Nov. 9, 2000, 2001 CPD
P: 96 at 16.
    
HSI next argues that the Navy improperly failed to consider the CPARS data
associated with its work on the USS O'Kane.  HSI states that this contract
was completed in May 2002, and complains that, if the responsible
officials had accomplished a timely CPAR evaluation, the PPET would have
been able to consider it in evaluating its proposal.  The record shows
that HSI was not given the CPARS data for comment until December 5, 2002. 
As the Navy explains, the PPET did not review the CPARS data for the USS
O'Kane contract because it was not completed until after award of the
contract being protested here.  If HSI knew it had completed the contract
in May but had not received the CPARS data by the time it submitted its
FPR in November, it should have taken the opportunity to include
information about its performance on the contract in its FPR if it
believed the information should have been considered.  By failing to do
so, HSI assumed the risk that the Navy's evaluation of its past
performance would not encompass this project.
    
Similarly, HSI argues that the Navy should have considered its work on the
YR-44 Barge because the work was almost identical to the work required
under this solicitation.  In its protest, HSI acknowledged that no CPARS
data was generated on this project due to the timeframe in which it was
performed.  As the Navy agrees, since this project was completed in 1995,
before the CPARS reporting system was in place, there was no CPARS data to
consider.  Again, since HSI knew there was no CPARS data on this project,
it was incumbent upon the firm to provide information about its
performance of the project in its proposal if it believed such information
should have been considered. 
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] The three past performance subfactors here correspond to several of
the evaluation categories used in the CPARS system.  Id. at 5(b1)-10.
[2] HSI's protest included numerous specific allegations concerning the
propriety of the Navy's evaluation of its past performance, all of which
were addressed in full by the agency report.  HSI's comments do not
revisit the majority of these allegations, which we deem to have been
abandoned.  Goode Constr., Inc., B-288655 et al.,      Oct. 19, 2001, 2001
CPD P: 186 at 4. 
[3] Since we find that the Navy reasonably concluded that HSI's work on
this project was not relevant, we need not consider HSI's complaint that
the evaluators did not have identical views concerning the merits of its
past performance on the project.