TITLE:  Command Enterprises, Inc., B-293754, June 7, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293754
DATE:  June 7, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Command Enterprises, Inc.

   File:            B-293754

   Date: June 7, 2004

   Charles F. Merz, Esq., Charles F. Merz & Associates, for the protester.

   Lynn H. Patton, Esq., Armstrong Allen, for Mow Better Lawn & Landscaping,
Inc., an intervenor.

   Maj. Graeme S. Henderson, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency properly rated protester's past/present performance as merely
satisfactory* in light of protester's insufficient relevant experience,
and the agency reasonably concluded that the risks associated with
protester's limited corporate experience were not offset by the individual
experience of protester's proposed project manager.

   DECISION

   Command Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Mow Better
Lawn & Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a/ Rushing Technical Services, Inc. (RTS)
under request for proposals (RFP) No. F16602-03-R-0005, issued by the
Department of the Air Force, for grounds maintenance at Barksdale Air
Force Base (AFB), Louisiana.  Command challenges the propriety of the Air
Force's past performance evaluation and its best value* determination.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP at issue here was published on August 11, 2003, seeking proposals
to perform various grounds maintenance activities on more than 3,200 acres
of improved, semia**improved, and unimproved land at Barksdale Air Force
Base (AFB), Louisiana, for a base period and six 1-year option periods. 
RFP, amend. No. 0001, App. A, at 24.   The statement of work (SOW)
requires the contractor to perform a variety of grounds maintenance
duties, including:  mowing, aeration, trimming/pruning shrubs/hedges,
irrigation, leaf removal, fertilization, fence cleaning, maintaining sand
play areas, edging of jogging trail, and clover eradication.  RFP amend.
No. 0001, App. A, at 14.

   The RFP provided for award on the basis of the proposal offering the best
value* to the government and established past/present performance and
price as the only evaluation factors, advising offerors that past/present
performance was significantly more important* than price.  RFP amend. No.
0001 at 2.  More specifically, with regard to evaluation of past/present
performance, the RFP provided:

   The past/present performance factor assesses the degree of confidence the
Air Force has in an offeror's ability to supply services that meet users'
needs including cost and schedule based on a demonstrated record of
project compliance.  The confidence assessment rating is established
through an integrated analysis of those risks and strengths identified by
the statement of work as determined by the offeror's recent, and relevant
projects performance.[[1]]  Relevant past performance is defined as
providing grounds maintenance services for approximately 2000 acres of
improved and semi-improved grounds as described in the Statement of Work,
in additional to providing all other similar work, as referenced in
Appendix A of the Statement of Work.A .A .A .  As a result of an analysis
of the risks and strengths identified in the past and present performance
record, each offeror will receive a rating for the Past Performance
factor.

   RFP amend. No. 0001 at 3. 

   In connection with the agency's assessment of past/present performance,
offerors were directed to submit questionnaires completed by contract
references for whom the offerors had performed prior work.  These
questionnaires sought responses to various questions under the headings
of:  performance, quality, cost, management and safety.  Price was
evaluated on the basis of reasonableness.

   Proposals were submitted by six offerors, including Command and RTS, by
the September 10 closing date.[2]  Command's proposal offered a price of
$10,257,440; RTS's proposal offered a price of $11,062,349.[3] 

   In evaluating Command's past/present performance, the agency determined
that Command had not performed any contracts that qualified as relevant
past performance.*[4]  Specifically, Command submitted past/present
performance questionnaires from references regarding three contracts:  one
at Jackson, Ohio that encompassed 369 acres; one at Ft. Campbell,
Kentucky, that encompassed 600 acres; and one at Fort Knox, Kentucky, for
which no acreage information was provided.  The agency concluded that
Command's past performance was not of sufficient magnitude to qualify as
relevant.*  In addition, the agency noted that Command's prior contracts
involved primarily mowing, and did not encompass the variety of tasks
required by this RFP.  Agency Report, Tab 20, Proposal Evaluation Report,
at 23-24, 26-27.  Nevertheless, because Command had proposed a project
manager with substantial experience,[5] the agency did not disqualify
Command's proposal from consideration.  Rather, based mainly on the work
the proposed Project Manager has performed,* the agency assigned Command's
proposal a past/present performance rating of satisfactory/confidence.* 
Id. at 27.    

   In contrast, the agency evaluated RTS's past/present performance as
exceptional/high confidence,* with no indication of performance, cost,
quality or management problems.  More specifically, the agency determined
that RTS possessed a proven track record of dependability and experience
in large area contracts and, as an incumbent contractor, had performed all
of the tasks identified in the SOW in an exceptional manner.  Overall, the
agency concluded that essentially no doubt exists that [RTS] will
successfully perform the required effort.*  Id. at 20-21.  

   On the basis of the initial proposals,[6] the agency performed a
price/performance tradeoff, concluding that RTS's superior past/present
performance warranted paying its somewhat higher price.  Agency Report,
Tab 20, Proposal Evaluation Report, at 25, 26-28.  This protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   Command protests the agency's past/present performance evaluation,
essentially arguing that, based on the prior experience of Command's
proposed project manager, the agency was required to rate Command's
past/present performance as exceptional/high confidence.*  We disagree. 

   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 PA 208 at 2-3.  Where a solicitation
requires the evaluation of an offeror's past performance, an agency has
the discretion to determine the scope of the offeror's performance
histories to be considered, provided all proposals are evaluated on the
same basis and consistent with the solicitation's requirements.  Honolulu
Shipyard, Inc., B-291760, Feb. 11, 2003, 2003 CPD P 47.  A protester's
mere disagreement with the agency's judgment in its determination of the
relevant merit of competing proposals does not establish that the
evaluation was unreasonable.  Sunbelt Design & Dev., Inc., B-291490,
B-291490.2, Jan. 2, 2003, 2003 CPD P 20 at 4-5. 

   Here, the agency evaluated Command's past/present performance as
satisfactory/confidence* because Command had not performed any contracts
that constituted relevant* past performance; that is, Command's prior
contracts were relatively small, and the scope of activities previously
performed was more limited than the broad range of activities required
under this solicitation.  As noted above, the RFP contained clear
definitions regarding relevant* past/present performance, and also advised
offerors that, in evaluating past/present performance the agency would
consider the risks and strengths identified in the past and present
performance record* of each offeror.  The agency's procurement record
amply supports the agency's concern that Command, the corporate offeror,
had not,  performed any contracts of sufficient size or scope to qualify
as relevant* past performance.  Although Command's proposal of an
experienced project manager reduced the agency's assessment of risk
flowing from Command's limited corporate experience, we find nothing
unreasonable in the agency's assessment of only a satisfactory/confidence*
rating.  Accordingly, Command's assertion that the experience of one
individual, its proposed project manager, mandated a rating of
exceptional/high confidence* is without merit. 

   Command also protests that the agency's best value* determination was
irrational.  However, this assertion is predicated on Command's assertion
that the agency should have evaluated Command's past/present performance
as equivalent to that of RTS.  As discussed above, there is no merit in
this assertion.  Further, the RFP specifically made past/present
performance significantly more important* than price.  On this record, we
find no basis to question the agency's price/past performance tradeoff. 

   The protest is denied.[7]

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The RFP also advised offerors that the following adjectival ratings
and associated definitions would be applied under the past/present
performance factor:  exceptional/high confidence* (essentially no doubt
exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort);
very good/significant confidence* (little doubt exists);
satisfactory/confidence* (some doubt exists); neutral/unknown confidence
(no performance record); marginal/little confidence* (substantial doubt
exists ); and unsatisfactory/no confidence* (extreme doubt exists).  RFP
amend. No.A 0001 at 3.  

   [2] Over the past 18 months, RTS has performed the grounds maintenance
services described in the SOW at Barksdale pursuant to a blanket purchase
agreement (BPA).  Agency Report, Tab 20, Proposal Evaluation Report at 3.

   [3] The other offerors' proposals are not relevant to resolution of
Command's protest; accordingly, they are not further discussed.

   [4] As discussed above, the solicitation provided that Relevant past
performance is defined as providing grounds maintenance services for
approximately 2000 acres of improved and semi-improved grounds as
described in the Statement of Work, in addition to providing all other
similar work [including aeration, trimming/pruning shrubs/hedges,
irrigation, leaf removal, fertilization, fence cleaning, maintaining sand
play areas, edging of jogging trail, and clover eradication] as referenced
in AppendixA A of the Statement of Work.*  RFP, amend. No. 0001 at 3. 

   [5] Prior to submitting its proposal, Command hired an experienced project
manager that had previously performed substantial grounds maintenance work
for another company.

   [6]  The RFP advised offerors that the agency intended to award a contract
on the basis of initial proposals.  RFP amend. No. 0001 at 4. 
Accordingly, there is no basis for Command's assertion that the agency was
required to conduct discussions.

   [7] In its comments responding to the agency report, Command complained
that the agency's source selection decision was improperly affected by
concerns regarding Command's financial capabilities.  As discussed above,
the agency's evaluation record contains ample documentation supporting the
agency's assessment of Command's past/present performance, and that the
agency reasonably determined that RTS's higher past/present performance
rating warranted its somewhat higher price.  Accordingly, Command's
assertions regarding allegedly improper consideration of its financial
capabilities do not provide any basis for sustaining the protest.