TITLE: B-294530.7, American Floor Consultants, Inc., June 15, 2006
BNUMBER: B-294530.7
DATE: June 15, 2006
***********************************************************
B-294530.7, American Floor Consultants, Inc., June 15, 2006

   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: American Floor Consultants, Inc.

   File: B-294530.7

   Date: June 15, 2006

   David M. Kupsky, Esq., for the protester.

   Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq., and Capt. Joseph F. Pera, Department of
   the Air Force, for the agency.

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance record is denied where
   agency reasonably determined that the past performance references were
   incomplete or not relevant.

   DECISION

   American Floor Consultants, Inc. (AFCI), a small business, protests the
   award of a contract to FloorPro, Inc. by the Department of the Air Force
   under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4861-04-R-A014 for application of
   chemically resistant urethane (CRU) on floors at various Air Force
   facilities. The protester contends that the agency improperly evaluated
   its past performance record and that AFCI's proposal should have been
   selected for award because it was the lowest-priced acceptable proposal.
   The protester also contends that the agency failed to take adequate
   corrective action in response to a prior protest.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP sought proposals for application of CRU coating on floors at
   Nellis Air Force Base and Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field,
   Nevada. The RFP required offerors to propose all labor, supplies,
   materials, supervision, transportation, and equipment for application of
   the coatings and subsequent floor maintenance. The RFP anticipated award
   of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, with fixed unit
   price task orders. The base performance period was 1 year, with four
   1-year option periods. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on
   the basis of two factors, past performance and price, and that "[a]s a
   basis for award, price is of secondary consideration." RFP at 56. The RFP
   provided that award would be based on a determination of which proposal
   offered the "best value" to the government and further stated that the
   government reserved the right to award to other than the lowest-priced
   proposal. Id.

   The agency received three proposals in response to the RFP. As relevant to
   this protest, the agency evaluated the offerors as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                   |    Price     |          Past Performance/          |
   |                   |              |       Performance Confidence        |
   |-------------------+--------------+-------------------------------------|
   |AFCI               |    $4,337,500|     Neutral/Unknown Confidence      |
   |-------------------+--------------+-------------------------------------|
   |FloorPro           |   $16,072,907|     Exceptional/High Confidence     |
   |-------------------+--------------+-------------------------------------|
   |[deleted]          |   $18,120,844|     Exceptional/High Confidence     |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, Initial Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 1.

   The agency initially awarded the contract to FloorPro on September 21,
   2005. The record shows that the agency had concluded that AFCI's proposed
   price was too low, and that the company could not perform the work at its
   proposed price. AR, Tab 17, Initial SSD, at 1. AFCI then filed a protest
   of the award with our Office, challenging the evaluation of its proposal
   and award to FloorPro. In a series of questions submitted in writing to
   the agency by our Office, the agency was advised to address whether it may
   have excluded AFCI from award consideration based on what was effectively
   a determination of non-responsibility. The agency subsequently determined
   that it would take corrective action by referring the matter to the Small
   Business Administration (SBA) for a possible certificate of competency
   (COC) determination.[1] Contracting Officer's Statement at 7-8. The agency
   then requested that our Office dismiss the protest based on its decision
   to take corrective action; we did so on November 28, 2005.

   During the corrective action, however, the SBA refused to accept the
   agency's COC referral because it was not clear that a determination that
   AFCI was a responsible offeror would result in the award of a contract.
   Id. The agency subsequently conducted a new source selection process that
   reviewed the existing technical and price evaluations. Id. at 9. In its
   revised SSD, the agency conducted a tradeoff, concluding that, AFCI's low
   proposed price and "neutral/unknown confidence" rating for past
   performance did not provide the best value to the government as compared
   to the offerors whose proposals were rated "exceptional/high confidence"
   for past performance. AR, Tab 17, Revised SSD, at 3. The protester now
   contends that the agency improperly evaluated its past performance record,
   made an unreasonable source selection, and failed to take adequate
   corrective action in response to the earlier protest.[2] For the reasons
   discussed below, we find the protest lacks merit.

   PAST PERFORMANCE EVAULATION

   The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past
   performance record. Our Office examines an agency's evaluation of
   offerors' past performance records to ensure that it was reasonable and
   consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and
   regulations. Prudent Techs., Inc., B-297425, Jan. 5, 2006, 2006 CPD para.
   16 at 4.

   Offerors were required to demonstrate past performance by identifying
   contracts that were recent, i.e., performed within the past 3 years, and
   relevant, i.e., "similar to requirements outlined in this solicitation to
   include, but not limited to, projects involving CRU floor applications,
   maintenance and repair work on flooring projects in the range of $10,000
   to $300,000." RFP at 56. Offerors were required to provide a list of their
   most recent contracts for federal, state and local governments for the
   past 3 years, and to provide their references the past performance
   questionnaire contained in the RFP. RFP at 50. The RFP explained that
   "[o]fferors are responsible to ensure that their reference sources
   receive, complete, and return the questionnaires on time to the issuing
   office." Id. The RFP also stated that "[t]he most weight will be given to
   relevant past performance in the field of maintaining, repairing and
   applying CRU flooring." RFP at 56. As part of the past performance
   evaluation, offerors were assigned a confidence rating that addressed the
   likelihood of successful performance. Id.

   The protester submitted a list of ten contracts in its proposal. AR, Tab
   12, AFCI Proposal, Attach. 4. The agency, however, received only three
   questionnaires regarding AFCI's past performance. AR, Tab 13, AFCI Past
   Performance Information. The first reference, from the Metropolitan
   Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, concerned a subcontract for removing
   hazardous materials performed in 2000. The agency determined that this
   contract was not within the 3-year period specified by the RFP, and did
   not involve relevant CRU flooring work. AR, Tab 16, Proposal Analysis
   Report (PAR), at 7. The next reference, from [deleted], concerned an
   undated contract for epoxy flooring. The final reference, from [deleted],
   was for CRU maintenance, but was also undated. The agency determined that
   the [deleted] and [deleted] references were incomplete because there was
   no information regarding the contract performance dates. Id. The agency
   attempted to contact the three references to obtain additional information
   by voicemail or email, but did not receive responses or updated
   references. Contracting Officer's Statement at 10.

   In evaluating AFCI's proposal, the agency determined that "[t]he past
   performance information submitted by this offeror was incomplete and/or
   not relevant/not recent." AR, Tab 13, AFCI Past Performance Evaluation, at
   1. The agency determined that "[b]ecause the government did not receive
   and could not obtain any evidence that AFCI had recent, relevant past
   performance history in regards to the type of work required by this
   solicitation, the PCAG [performance confidence assessment group] evaluated
   this offeror's performance as neutral and assign[ed] a performance
   confidence rating of `unknown.'"[3] AR, Tab 17, Revised SSD, at 3.

   The protester contends that the agency unreasonably limited its
   consideration of AFCI's past performance to the three references because
   the list of contracts identified in its proposal demonstrated a history of
   relevant performance. As explained in the RFP, however, offerors were
   required to submit information demonstrating their past performance
   records, including the relevance and recency of the contracts, and that
   past performance would be evaluated on the basis of ratings provided in
   the references. RFP at 50. The record shows that the agency received three
   references, none of which was recent or relevant. AR, Tab 16, PAR, at 7.
   The protester also argues that the evaluation was unreasonable because the
   agency did not make adequate efforts to verify the references. The RFP
   stated, however, that offerors were responsible for ensuring that their
   past performance references received, completed and returned the
   questionnaires. RFP at 50. The fact that the agency attempted to contact
   three references, but was unsuccessful in doing so, did not render the
   evaluation unreasonable. Further, in our view, the agency made reasonable
   attempts to contact the three references.

   In sum, we believe that the agency's evaluation of AFCI's past performance
   here was reasonable. The agency based its evaluation on the past
   performance questionnaires received, in accordance with the terms of the
   RFP. Because AFCI did not meet its obligation to ensure that past
   performance questionnaires were completed and received by the agency, the
   protester provides no basis to challenge the agency's determination that
   its proposal warranted a rating of "neutral/unknown confidence."

   SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

   The protester next argues it should have been selected for award because
   it submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. The RFP,
   however, provided that award would be made on the basis of a
   price-technical tradeoff, and not necessarily to the proposal with the
   lowest price. RFP at 56. In any event, the record indicates that the
   agency's source selection was reasonable.

   The SSD compared the two proposals that were rated "exceptional/high
   confidence" to the protester's proposal, which was rated "neutral/unknown
   confidence." AR, Tab 17, Revised SSD, at 3. The agency concluded that,
   even though the two "exceptional/high confidence" offerors were higher in
   price, the higher ratings were worth the tradeoff: "The extremely high
   risk of awarding a contract to an offeror with no identifiable relevant
   performance record does not justify the cost savings." Id. The agency then
   compared the two "exceptional/high confidence" offerors and concluded that
   the lower price of FloorPro merited award. Id.

   Although agencies may not rate an offeror that lacks relevant past
   performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, an
   agency may in a price/technical tradeoff determine that a high past
   performance rating is worth more than a neutral past performance rating.
   See CMC & Maint., Inc., B-292081, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 107 at 4.
   We believe that the agency's source selection was reasonable and
   consistent with the RFP award criteria, which stated that past performance
   was less important than price. The protest provides no reasonable basis to
   challenge the agency's determination.

   CORRECTIVE ACTION

   Because we believe that the agency's evaluation of AFCI's past performance
   record was reasonable, and that the source selection decision was
   reasonable, we conclude that there is no basis to challenge the agency's
   corrective action. Although the agency did not obtain SBA's input
   regarding AFCI's responsibility, such input was not needed because the
   agency's evaluation and source selection decision did not conclude that
   AFCI was other than a responsible offeror.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Under the FAR, a contracting officer must make an affirmative
   determination of an offeror's responsibility before making award to the
   firm. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 9.103(b). A COC referral
   is required when an agency determines that a small business offeror would
   be otherwise in line for award, but for a determination of
   non-responsibility. See 13 C.F.R. sect. 125.5 (2006); Tenderfoot Sock Co.,
   Inc., B- 293088.2, July 30, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 147 at 3. Where SBA
   issues a COC, agencies are to make award to the concern, without requiring
   it to meet any other responsibility or eligibility requirement. 15 U.S.C.
   sect. 637(b)(7)(C) (2000); FAR sect. 19.602-4.

   [2] The protester also alleges that the proposal submitted by the awardee
   exceeded the maximum contract values identified in the solicitation and
   therefore should have been rejected. This issue was raised for the first
   time, however, in the protester's comments on the agency report. Our Bid
   Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of
   protests. Under these rules, a protest based on other than alleged
   improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 10 calendar
   days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for
   protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2). Because the
   protester knew of the awardee's proposed price prior to filing its protest
   of the agency's revised source selection decision, the issue could not be
   timely raised in its comments on the agency report.

   [3] Under the RFP's evaluation scheme, an "unknown confidence" rating was
   a "neutral" rating, consistent with the guidance of the FAR sect.
   15.305(a)(2). RFP at 56. FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iii) states that "an
   offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom
   information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be
   rated favorably or unfavorably on past performance."