TITLE:  All Phase Services, Inc., B-294640; B-294640.2, December 1, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294640; B-294640.2
DATE:  December 1, 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: All Phase Services, Inc.

   File: B-294640; B-294640.2

   Date: December 1, 2004

   Edward J. Kinberg, Esq., Kinberg & Associates, for the protester.

   Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.  In evaluating past performance, agency properly considered prior
contracts performed by awardee's proposed subcontractor where solicitation
expressly advised offerors that such information would be considered, and
awardee submitted a letter from the proposed subcontractor expressly
authorizing consideration of its past performance information. 

   2.  In awarding contract for demolition services, agency reasonably
determined that various demolition contracts performed by the awardee and
the awardee's proposed subcontractor were relevant for purposes of
evaluating past performance. 

   3.  Agency's procurement record reasonably supports the determination that
awardee's higher priced, higher rated proposal represented the best value
to the government where solicitation advised offerors that past
performance was significantly more important than price and the
contracting officer expressly documented the bases for concluding that the
risks associated with protester's lower past performance rating outweighed
the protester's price advantage.

   DECISION

   All Phase Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award
of a contract to Fencon Corporation pursuant to request for proposals
(RFP) No. FA4418-04-R-0009 to perform various demolition services at
Charleston Air

   Force Base (AFB), South Carolina.  All Phase protests that the agency
improperly evaluated Fencon's past performance and failed to make a
reasonable best value determination. 

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The agency issued RFP No. FA4418-04-R-0009 on June 10, 2004, seeking
proposals to provide all personnel, vehicles and equipment necessary to
perform demolition of military family housing units and various industrial
facilities at Charleston AFB, South Carolina.  The solicitation limited
the competition to small disadvantaged businesses under the Small Business
Administration's section 8(a) program and contemplated award of an
indefinite-delivery requirements contract for a 1-year base period and
four 1-year option periods. 

   The solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated only with
regard to price and past performance, and advised offerors that past
performance was significantly more important than price.  Agency Report,
Tab 4, at 49 (bold in original).  Regarding the evaluation of past
performance, the solicitation stated that [r]elevant contracts include,
but are not limited to, those contracts . . . of similar scope, magnitude
and complexity to the services required to be performed at Charleston
AFB, and provided that each offeror's past performance would be rated as
exceptional, very good, satisfactory, neutral, marginal, or
unsatisfactory.  Id. at 47-48.  The solicitation also provided that
[t]he evaluation of past performance . . . will take into account past
performance information regarding . . . subcontractors that will perform
major or critical aspects of the requirement. [1]  Id. at 47. 
Accordingly, offerors were directed to [p]rovide with the proposal a
letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects
of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance
information. Id at 48.  Finally, the solicitation stated that, in
selecting the awardee, the contracting officer would make an integrated
assessment best value award decision based on price and past performance
considerations.  Id. at 49. 

   Proposals were submitted by several offerors, including All Phase and
Fencon; thereafter, the agency obtained past performance information
regarding the four lowest-priced offerors.[2] Consistent with the
solicitation provision regarding subcontractors, Fencon submitted a letter
from S&A Services, Inc., stating:  Fencon Corporation is hereby
authorized to use S&A Services, Inc. past performance information in the
submission of your proposal for [the solicitation at issue here].  Agency
Report, Tab 15, at 15.  The proposals were evaluated by the agency with
the following results:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Offeror              |Price                |Past Performance            |
|---------------------+---------------------+----------------------------|
|Fencon               | $6,426,123          |Very Good                   |
|---------------------+---------------------+----------------------------|
|Offeror A            |[deleted]            |Satisfactory                |
|---------------------+---------------------+----------------------------|
|Offeror B            |[deleted]            |Satisfactory                |
|---------------------+---------------------+----------------------------|
|All Phase            |[deleted]            |Satisfactory                |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report, Tab 9, at 1.

   In evaluating Fencon's past performance, the agency considered information
regarding three demolition contracts Fencon had previously performed,
assigning ratings of satisfactory, exceptional, and very good to the
contracts, respectively.[3]  Agency Report, Tab 9, at 6-7.  In summarizing
Fencon's past performance information, the contracting officer stated: 
Fencon received numerous favorable comments.  They have experience in
large projects to include the demolition, asbestos removal and lead base
paint abatement, and further noted that one of the references had
characterized Fencon as very responsive and exceptional to work with. 
Agency Report, Tab 9, at 6.  In evaluating Fencon's proposal, the agency
also considered past performance information regarding four demolition
contracts performed by S&A Services, Inc., the subcontractor for which
Fencon had submitted an authorization letter.  With regard to these four
contracts, S&A's performance was rated exceptional for three, and very
good for the fourth. Agency Report, Tab 9, at 7.  Overall, Fencon's
proposal was rated very good for past performance, based on the
information relating to both Fencon's and S&A's prior performance
history.     

   In evaluating All Phase's past performance, the agency considered
information regarding four demolition contracts All Phase had performed,
assigning ratings of satisfactory for three of these contracts and very
good for the fourth.  Agency Report, Tab 9, at 2.  Overall, All Phase's
proposal was rated satisfactory for past performance.  In contrast to
the discussion of Fencon's performance, the contracting officer noted that
one reference identified areas of concern with All Phase that included
cooperativeness from the contractor to maintain communication and attend
meetings, providing a realistic project schedule and providing accurate
line item proposals.  Id.    

   Following the agency's evaluation, Fencon's proposal was selected for
award.  In the source selection document, the contracting officer
specifically recognized the higher price proposed by Fencon, but concluded
that [i]n my view the additional cost offsets the risk associated with
the lower priced offerors.  Agency Report, Tab 9, at 8. 

   All Phase was subsequently notified of the agency's source selection
decision.  This protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   All Phase first protests that it was improper for the agency to consider
the past performance of S&A in connection with Fencon's proposal.  We
disagree.

   As discussed above, the solicitation expressly advised offerors that, in
evaluating past performance, the agency would include consideration of
major subcontractors' past performance.  In this regard, the solicitation
directed that an offeror must submit a written authorization from any
subcontractor whom the offeror intended to perform major or critical
aspects of the contract requirements.  Agency Report, Tab 4, at 48.  Here,
Fencon's proposal included the required letter of authorization. 
Supplemental Contracting Officer's Statement, Nov. 2, 2004, at 1. 
Accordingly, the agency's consideration of S&A's past performance in
evaluating Fencon's proposal was consistent with the solicitation
requirements.[4]

   All Phase next complains that some of the contracts identified by Fencon
for consideration in the past performance evaluation were not sufficiently
similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the contract requirements
at issue and therefore, should not have been considered relevant for
evaluation purposes.

   The evaluation of past performance, including the agency's determination
of the relevance and scope of the offeror's performance history to be
considered, is a matter of agency discretion, which we will not find
improper unless

   unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation criteria, or
undocumented.  Acepex Mgmt. Corp., B-283080 et al., Oct. 4, 1999, 99-2 CPD
paragraph 77 at 3, 5.

   Here, as discussed above, the agency properly considered past performance
information of both Fencon and S&A in evaluating Fencon's proposal.  In
this regard, the record is unambiguous that the agency considered a total
of seven demolition contracts, ranging in value from approximately $84,000
to $528,000.  Agency Report, Tabs 8, 9, 15.  The contracting officer
concluded that these contracts, which required primarily demolition and
abatement activities, were sufficiently similar to the contract
requirements at issue to be considered relevant.  We have reviewed the
agency's evaluation record and find nothing to support All Phase's
contention that the contracting officer's relevance determinations were
unreasonable.[5]  In any event, the solicitation specifically provided
that, for past performance purposes, relevant contracts include, but are
not limited to, those contracts . . . of similar scope, magnitude and
complexity to the required services.  Agency Report, Tab 4, at 47 
(emphasis added).  On this record, we find no merit in All Phase's protest
challenging the relevance of the contracts on which the agency relied for
purposes of Fencon's past performance rating.  

   Next, All Phase challenges the adequacy of the agency's best value
determination, complaining that a numerical evaluation of Fencon's and
All Phase's past performance ratings discloses that there is only a 5%
difference in their total points.  Supplemental Protest at 5.  All Phase
complains that this relatively slight difference in past performance
rating was insufficient to support the agency's best value determination. 
Id. 

   A determination regarding the relative merits of competing offerors' past
performance information is primarily a matter within the contracting
agency's discretion.  Our Office's review of such assessments is generally
limited to determining that the agency assessments were reasonable and
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  DGR Assocs., Inc.,
B-285428, B-285428.2, Aug. 25, 2000, 2000 CPD paragraph 145.  A
protester's mere disagreement with an agency's past performance evaluation
is not sufficient to overturn that evaluation.  Grey Personnel Servcs.,
Inc., B-285002, B-285002.2, June 26, 2000, 2000 CPD paragraph 112. 

   Here, as the agency points out in responding to this aspect of All Phase's
protest, the agency employed an adjectival--not numerical point
scored--rating system in evaluating past performance;[6] the numerical
calculation of a 5% difference reflects All Phase's assessment, not the
agency's.  In any event, the solicitation specifically advised offerors
that past performance was significantly more important than price and
the agency's documentation supporting the best value determination clearly
shows that the contracting officer considered the difference between
Fencon's and All Phase's proposed prices, but concluded that the lower
risks associated with Fencon's past performance outweighed its higher
price.  Among other things, the contracting officer's source selection
decision document states: 

   Fencon not only has the experience in demolition and asbestos paint
abatement but they have also demonstrated their ability [to] successfully
manage these projects and others with little government oversight or
intervention.  They have shown a very good history of performance with no
problems identified by any of the references questioned.  Based on this
record, there is little doubt they will successfully perform the required
effort.  The potential cost difference of [deleted] (worst case; if all
line items and estimated quantities are fully utilized) is [deleted]
greater than [All Phase's proposed price] over a 5-year period.  In my
view the additional cost offsets the risk associated with [All Phase's
proposal].

   Agency Report, Tab 9, at 8. 

   On this record we find no basis to question the reasonableness of the
agency's best value determination. 

   Finally, All Phase asserts that the agency relied on evaluation factors
other than those identified in the solicitation, including the
[p]roximity of the offeror to the location of the work to be performed. 
Supplemental Protest at 6.  All Phase asserts that, based on its research,
it has determined that Fencon is the only offeror from the State [South
Carolina] in which the work [is] to be performed and, therefore, the
agency must have used the geographic location of the offerors as an
unstated evaluation factor.  Supplemental Protest at 7. 

   An unsupported allegation, which amounts to mere speculation, is
insufficient to form a basis for protest.  King-Fisher Co., B-256849, July
28, 1994, 94-2 CPD paragraph 62. 

   Here, the record is devoid of any indication that the agency relied on any
unstated evaluation factors, including the geographic proximity of the
offerors. 

   Accordingly, All Phase's speculation in this regard provides no basis to
challenge the agency's source selection decision. 

   The protest is denied.[7]

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The solicitation also advised offerors that the agency would consider
past performance information regarding predecessor companies and key
personnel who have relevant experience, and that the agency may use past
performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by
the Offeror.  Id. 

   [2] Initial price proposals were submitted by twenty offerors.  Agency
Report, Tab 9, at 1.  The solicitation provided that, following submission
of price proposals, the agency would obtain past performance information
on the lowest priced offerors (usually the lowest three to five). 
Agency Report, Tab 4, RFP at 49.  Here, the agency obtained past
performance information regarding the four lowest priced offerors, which
included Fencon and All Phase.

   [3] A fourth Fencon contract for Flooring, Carpeting, wallpaper, was
assigned a rating of NR [not relevant] because it did not involve
demolition.  Agency Report, Tab 9, at 6.  

   [4] All Phase complains that the language of Fencon's proposal did not
specifically state that Fencon was proposing S&A as a major
subcontractor.  In the context of this solicitation, which sought only
submission of past performance and pricing information, and required
submission of authorization letters from major subcontractors, Fencon's
submission of S&A's authorization letter, which expressly stated that
Fencon is hereby authorized to use S&A past performance information in
the submission of your proposal, provided a reasonable basis for the
agency to conclude that Fencon was proposing S&A as a major subcontractor.

   [5] With regard to comparable value, although the total price for the
contract at issue is considerably greater than the individual values of
Fencon's prior contracts, the value of the protested contract covers a
base year period and 4 option years, during which individual delivery
orders will be issued for substantially less than the total contract
price.  

   [6] As noted above, the solicitation expressly advised offerors that each
offeror's past performance would be rated as exceptional, very good, 
satisfactory, neutral, marginal, or unsatisfactory.  Agency
Report, Tab 4, at 47.

   [7] All Phase's protest submissions also contain various allegations, not
specifically discussed above, including the assertion that the contracting
officer was biased, that it was inappropriate for the agency to initiate
telephone calls to obtain past performance information, that the agency
provided an inadequate debriefing, and that the agency's 5-day delay in
providing protester's counsel with a portion of the procurement record
demonstrates that the procurement decision was flawed.  We have reviewed
all of All Phase's allegations and find no basis for sustaining the
protest.