TITLE:  DeLeon Technical Services, Inc., B-293783, June 4, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293783
DATE:  June 4, 2004
**********************************************************************
   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:   DeLeon Technical Services, Inc.

    

   File:            B-293783

    

   Date:              June 4, 2004

    

   Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, for the protester.

   Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna, Long & Aldridge, for T Square Logistics
Services Corporation, an intervenor.

   Lt. Col. David L. Bell and Michele T. Lacey, Esq., Department of the Air
Force, for the agency.

   Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest of agency's evaluation of past performance and source selection
decision is denied where record shows that the evaluation and award
decision were reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation,
and in accordance with applicable procurement rules.

   DECISION

    

   DeLeon Technical Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to T
Square Logistics Services Corporation under request for proposals (RFP)
No. F41636-02-R-0045, issued as a small business set-aside by the
Department of the Air Force for vehicle operations and maintenance at
Lackland Air Force Base (AFB), Texas. DeLeon challenges the agency's
evaluation of the offerors' past performance and the decision to award the
contract to a lower-priced offeror; the protester believes that it has
more relevant past performance experience than the awardee, and that the
agency should have considered that in making its source selection.
    

   We deny the protest.

    

   The RFP, issued on December 16, 2002, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price requirements contract for a base period and 4 option years. 
Offerors were advised that the agency would make a *best value* award
decision using a performance/price trade-off (PPT).  Under the RFP's PPT
procedures, technically acceptable proposals would be evaluated for the
quality of the firms' past performance, in order to assess performance
confidence.  RFP at 55-56.  Past performance was to be evaluated based on
data submitted by the offerors, reference surveys, or other information
obtained by the government regarding no more than five relevant contracts
performed within the last 5 years.  RFP at 54.  The past performance
evaluations were to include consideration of, among other things, the
relevancy and recency of the work performed, the extent of performance,
the size and complexity of the work relative to the current requirement,
as well as performance quality, timeliness, results, and customer
satisfaction.  RFP at 56.  To determine which proposal offered the *best
value* for award, a trade-off between price and past performance was to be
conducted, with past performance being significantly more important than
price.  RFP at 57.  Where the lowest-priced proposal received an
exceptional performance rating, however, the evaluation process was to
end, that proposal was to be considered the *best value* to the
government, and award was to be made to that offeror without further
consideration of any other offers received.  Id.

    

   Of the six proposals received, three were included in the final
competitive range, including DeLeon's and T Square's, which had both
received *exceptional* past performance ratings.  Award was made to T
Square based upon its slightly lower evaluated price.  This protest
followed.  DeLeon challenges the agency's past performance evaluation and
source selection, arguing that it has more relevant past performance
experience, and that the agency should have determined that an award to
DeLeon was warranted as the *best value* despite its higher price.

    

   In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not
our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, our Office examines the record
to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable, and in accord
with the RFP criteria and applicable procurement statutes and
regulations.  Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD P 223
at 4.  The protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does
not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.  UNICCO Gov't Servs.,
Inc., B-277658, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD P 134 at 7.

    

   As an initial matter, we note that while the protester argues that its
past performance experience is more relevant and substantial than the
awardee's, the RFP did not require a qualitative comparison of the merits
of proposals rated exceptional for past performance.  Rather, as stated
above, the RFP expressly provided for selection of the lowest-priced
proposal where it received a rating of exceptional for past performance. 
Accordingly, our review and discussion here of the agency's evaluation of
proposals is necessarily limited to the protester's contention that
T Square's past performance information fails to reasonably support the
exceptional rating it received.  DeLeon also contends that the RFP
required consideration of only those contracts comparable in size and
complexity to the RFP's requirements.  As the agency points out, however,
while the RFP sought past performance information about relevant
contracts, the RFP did not restrict the evaluators' consideration of an
offeror's past performance to only those contracts of the same size, scope
or complexity; rather, the size and complexity of the prior contracts were
factors to be considered in the past performance evaluation along with
others relating to the quality of performance.  RFP at 56.

    

   As stated above, DeLeon contends that the contracts reviewed by the agency
for T Square's past performance evaluation were not adequately relevant to
the RFP's requirements, and the evaluation was therefore unreasonable.[1] 
Our review of the record, including the evaluation record, source
selection decision, and the proposals, fails to support the protester's
challenge.

    

   For instance, while DeLeon argues that T Square's vehicle operations and
maintenance contract at Sheppard AFB was a smaller contract (at almost
half the price anticipated here), the record confirms the reasonableness
of the agency's judgment that the contract requirements (such as the
number of vehicles to be serviced) are similar to those called for here
and that the price difference instead primarily reflected the shorter
performance period of that contract; we therefore see no reason to object
to the agency's consideration of the exceptional ratings and the highly
favorable customer satisfaction comments received from the past
performance reference for T Square's work under the contract.  Similarly,
we have no reason to object to the agency's consideration of the highly
favorable (exceptional) ratings given by a reference for a tactical wheel
maintenance contract performed by T Square, or the very good ratings
received for an airfield operations support contract.  Although these
contracts were smaller in scope than the overall effort required here,
they were directly related to work required under the current RFP and
therefore reasonably were considered in the agency's assessment of the
firm's past performance.

    

   Further, in assessing the awardee's past performance, the agency also
considered information obtained from a past performance information
retrieval system (PPIRS) maintained by the government that included five
past performance reports for the firm for work (including the Sheppard AFB
contract discussed above) considered relevant to the current requirement. 
Those PPIRS reports consistently rated T Square exceptional for quality of
service, timeliness of performance, business relations, management of key
personnel, and cost control; as stated above, these are all factors
provided by the RFP for assessing an offeror's past performance and
determining its overall performance confidence rating.

    

   The record also shows that the agency considered T Square's proposed
subcontractor's performance of substantially similar work (under a
substantially larger contract than anticipated under the current RFP) at
Tyndall AFB.  Although DeLeon notes that a past performance reference
survey was not submitted for this contract, the RFP did not limit the past
performance evaluations to reference surveys; rather, as stated above, the
agency was to consider data submitted by each offeror, as well as
information obtained by the government from additional sources.  Here, the
agency found, and our review confirms, that the awardee's past performance
proposal identified its subcontractor's substantially similar work at
several other AFBs, and, in particular, its vehicle operations and
maintenance work at Tyndall AFB.  Additionally, T Square's proposal
documented that firm's receipt of favorable performance ratings (i.e., the
highest ratings available) under at least two agency reviews conducted
during the term of that contract.

    

   In sum, the protester has not provided, and our review of the record also
does not show, any basis to question the reasonableness of the exceptional
rating for past performance given to T Square.  Since the RFP expressly
provided for award to the lowest priced offeror where it received an
exceptional past performance rating, the protester also has not shown that
the award to T Square, the lowest priced offeror, was improper.[2] 
Accordingly, the protest is denied.  

    

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

    

    

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

   [1] While DeLeon protests the relevance of T Square's past performance, it
does not challenge the high level of customer satisfaction and highly
favorable commentary about the quality of the work performed by T Square
that was considered by the agency, including the exceptional ratings
submitted by the firm's references and contained in government performance
records, as well as the highly favorable performance data submitted in the
firm's proposal.

   [2] In its comments, for the first time, DeLeon protests the
reasonableness of price estimates included in the agency's report
responding to the protest.A  In those comments, however, DeLeon also
indicates that it had reason to question the agency's estimates as early
as during discussions when the agency referred to some of DeLeon's prices
as unreasonably high.A  DeLeon explains that, although it initially
lowered its prices in response to the agency's comments during
discussions, it ultimately raised its prices in its final proposal
revision to better reflect what it considered to be more reasonable prices
than had been indicated during discussions.A  In this regard, in its
comments, the protester states that A*[r]ecognizing the unrealistic nature
of the Government's estimate . . . and that it could not capture the real
costs [of the services,] DeLeon raised its price back to a reasonable
level . . . .A*A  Comments at 5.A  The protester's challenge to the
agency's price estimates, however, was not raised by the firm in its
initial protest to our Office despite having sufficient information to do
so.A  The issue, raised for the first time in the protester's comments 6
weeks later, is untimely and will not be considered.A  See Bid Protest
Regulations,
4 C.F.R. AS 21.2(a)(2) (2004).A  A protest that could have been filed in a
timely manner, but was not, cannot be revived by the protester's
subsequent receipt of documents that confirms what the protester should
have known and pursued much earlier.A  See Joppa Maint. Co., Ba**281579,
B-281579.2, Mar. 2, 1999, 2000 CPD P 2 at 6-7.