TITLE:  Chenega Technical Products, LLC, B-295451.5, June 22, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295451.5
DATE:  June 22, 2005
**********************************************************************
   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: Chenega Technical Products, LLC

   File: B-295451.5

   Date: June 22, 2005

   William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the protester.

   Maj. Gregory R. Bockin and Lt. Col. David C. Hoffman, Department of the
Army, for the agency.

   Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.  Protest of agency's past performance evaluation is denied where record
shows evaluation was reasonable and consistent with evaluation criteria;
protester's disagreement with agency's evaluation is insufficient to show
it was unreasonable. 

   2.  Protest that agency's source selection decision was improperly based
on a mechanical comparison of evaluation ratings is denied where the
record shows the agency adequately considered offerors' prices and
performance risk in its award determination.

   DECISION

   Chenega Technical Products, LLC protests the decision by the Army
Contracting Agency, Southern Region Contracting Center East, Department of
the Army, not to award Chenega a contract under request for proposals
(RFP) No. W911SE-R-0005, for continental United States support base
services (CSBS).  Chenega alleges that the evaluation of its past
performance was unreasonable and that the agency's source selection
decision was improper.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP, issued on August 6, 2004 as a total small-business set-aside,
contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
(ID/IQ) contracts for a base year with four 1-year options to perform
mobilization services previously performed by Army reservists or other
uniformed personnel, in order to prepare soldiers for overseas
deployments.  The solicitation set forth a total of 12 functional task
areas deemed essential to the CSBS process (i.e., plans, training,
mobilization, security, human resources, finance, material management and
supply, services, movements, equipment readiness and maintenance,
billeting and facilities, and information management), as well as the
mobilization stations at which the support base services would be
performed.[1]  RFP Section B4, attach. 1, Performance Work Statement, at
1.

   The solicitation identified three evaluation criteria:  technical, past
performance, and price.  With regard to the evaluation of proposals, the
RFP informed offerors that only those proposals determined to be "highly
qualified" under the technical factor would be eligible for further
evaluation and award.  RFP Section M2.  Among proposals rated as highly
qualified under the technical evaluation factor, past performance was then
to be considered in a tradeoff process as significantly more important
than price in making the final determination regarding award.  Id.  Award
was to be made to offerors whose proposals were determined to be the best
value to the government, all factors considered.[2]  RFP Section M1.

   Sixteen offerors, including Chenega, submitted proposals by the September
14 closing date.  A technical review team evaluated the technical
proposals and determined that 10 offerors, including Chenega, were highly
qualified.  Agency Report (AR), Tab G, Source Selection Evaluation Board
(SSEB) Technical Report, at 1. 

   A past performance evaluation team (PPET) then evaluated the performance
risk of those offerors determined to be highly qualified technically,
using ratings of low performance risk, average performance risk, high
performance risk, and neutral/ unknown risk.[3]  The PPET originally rated
Chenega as high performance risk, AR, Tab I, PPET Evaluation Worksheets,
at 1; the source selection authority (SSA), however, later determined that
Chenega merited a performance risk rating of average.  AR, Tab R, Source
Selection Decision, at 8.  The SSA also concluded that the evaluated
prices of all offerors found to be highly qualified technically were fair
and reasonable.[4]  Id. at 9-10.  The SSA then selected for award those
seven offerors whose proposals were evaluated as highly qualified
technically, with low performance risk, and whose prices were found to be
fair and reasonable.[5]  Id. at 11.

   On December 6, following a debriefing by the agency, Chenega filed a
protest with our Office, arguing that the agency had improperly evaluated
the offerors' past performance.  On January 18, 2005, Chenega filed a
supplemental protest alleging that the Army's source selection decision
was inconsistent with the RFP by failing to perform and/or document a
tradeoff determination.  The Army subsequently notified our Office of its
intent to take corrective action in response to Chenega's supplemental
protest by making a new source selection decision.  We dismissed both
protests as academic on January 26.  On March 2, the SSA again determined
that Chenega's proposal did not justify a contract award.  AR, Tab X,
Amended Source Selection Decision, at 3.  On March 25, following a
debriefing by the agency, Chenega filed this protest with our Office.

   ANALYSIS

   Chenega first protests that the agency's evaluation of its past
performance was unreasonable.  Specifically, Chenega argues that the Army
improperly failed to take into account Chenega's contract at Fort Dix, New
Jersey, which demonstrated successful performance in all CSBS task areas. 
Chenega also argues that the agency improperly failed to give the
protester full credit for all task areas in which it had demonstrated
successful performance for its Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland,
and Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, contracts.  Chenega contends that had the Army
properly evaluated its proposal, it would have received a rating of low
performance risk instead of average performance risk.

   Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of offerors' past
performance, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was
both reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation
criteria, since determining the relative merits of offerors' past
performance information is primarily a matter within the contracting
agency's discretion.  Metro Mach. Corp., B-295744, B-295744.2, Apr. 21,
2005, 2005 CPD paragraph __ at 21; Hanley Indus., Inc., B-295318, Feb. 2,
2005, 2005 CPD paragraph 20 at 4.  A protester's mere disagreement with
the agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted
unreasonably.  Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing, B-285035, July 5,
2000, 2000 CPD paragraph 129 at 5. Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that the agency's evaluation of Chenega's past performance here
was both reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation terms.

   The solicitation required offerors to submit information for all contracts
and subcontracts performed within the last 3 years, including but not
limited to those which were similar in complexity to the effort required
by the RFP, and to indicate for each contract (among other things) the
period of performance.  RFP Section L3c.  Offerors were also required to
demonstrate how the prior contracts referenced were relevant to the
functional task areas set forth in the RFP here.  Id.  Regarding the
evaluation of offerors' past performance, the solicitation established two
subfactors:  1) relevant experience in the 12 task areas on contracts
performed or completed over the past 3 years that were similar to the
functions described in the RFP, and 2) quality, including the areas of
quality of service, timeliness of performance, and business
relations/customer satisfaction.  RFP Section M2c, d. 

   The RFP also informed offerors of the rating scheme that the agency
intended to use for the evaluation of past performance.  Specifically, the
evaluation of proposals under the past performance evaluation factor would
result in a risk assessment rating, representing the evaluation team's
judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the
proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated past performance.  RFP
Section M3b.  The solicitation also described the performance risk
assessment ratings as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Low Risk            |Based on the offeror's performance record,         |
|                    |essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will  |
|                    |successfully perform the required effort.  Little  |
|                    |or no Government oversight is expected to be       |
|                    |required in achieving the proposed level of        |
|                    |performance.                                       |
|--------------------+---------------------------------------------------|
|Average Risk        |Based on the offeror's performance record, some    |
|                    |doubt exists that the offeror will successfully    |
|                    |perform the required effort.  Some Government      |
|                    |oversight is expected to be required in achieving  |
|                    |the proposed level of performance.                 |
|--------------------+---------------------------------------------------|
|High Risk           |Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme |
|                    |doubt exists that the offeror will successfully    |
|                    |perform the required effort.  Regardless of the    |
|                    |degree of Government oversight or intervention,    |
|                    |successful performance is extremely doubtful.      |
|--------------------+---------------------------------------------------|
|Neutral/Unknown Risk|No performance record identifiable.                |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   RFP Section M3b2.

   Chenega's proposal referenced a total of 10 prior contracts, each of which
contained a brief narrative description of the "history of work
performed/relevance" and a table indicating the alleged applicability of
the prior contract to various RFP task areas.  AR, Tab H, Chenega Past
Performance Proposal, at 1-28.  Included within Chenega's proposal and
relevant to the protest here were the following prior contracts:  1) a
garrison support unit mobility support services contract at Fort Dix,
represented as being relevant to all task areas except information
management; 2) an armed security guard services contract for various
military installations (hereinafter the APG contract), represented as
being relevant to the plans, training, mobilization, security, human
resources, and services task areas; and 3) a support services contract at
Fort McCoy, represented as being relevant to the training, human
resources, and finance task areas.  Id. at 1-7, 17-19.

   In its evaluation, the agency found that Chenega failed to demonstrate
successful past performance in all 12 CSBS task areas.  Specifically,
notwithstanding the quality of Chenega's performance, the agency
determined that Chenega's proposal did not show relevant experience in the
task areas of training, finances, services, equipment readiness and
maintenance, billeting and facilities, and information management.  AR,
Tab I, PPET Consensus Evaluation of Chenega, at 1-2, Tab X, Amended Source
Selection Decision, at 2.  Importantly, the PPET determined that Chenega's
Fort Dix contract, while similar to all task areas in the RFP here, had
been performed for less than 1 month at the time of the evaluation and,
because of its short duration, would not be considered in the past
performance evaluation.  AR, Tab I, PPET Consensus Evaluation of Chenega,
at 1.  The PPET also found that the experience claimed in Chenega's APG
and Fort McCoy contracts pertained mainly to internal contractor
operations, not to the support of mobilizing soldiers and units, and as
such, did not relate to the task areas here.  Id. 

   Chenega does not dispute the fact that its Fort Dix contract had been
performed for only 1 month at the time of the agency's evaluation here. 
Rather, Chenega argues that RFP did not establish as a qualifying factor
the duration of prior contract efforts in order to be considered relevant
past performance.  The protester also contends that the brief period of
performance of its Fort Dix contract should not be a disqualifying factor,
inasmuch as performance in the first month is the strongest indicator of
the quality of performance for the entire period (Chenega's performance in
the first month was successful).  By failing to inform offerors that prior
contract performance had a durational qualifying factor, Chenega argues,
the Army improperly employed an unstated evaluation criterion to the
protester's detriment. 

   Although agencies are required to identify in a solicitation all major
evaluation factors, they are not required to identify all areas of each
factor which might be taken into account in an evaluation, provided that
the unidentified areas are reasonably related to or encompassed by the
stated factors.  AIA-Todini-Lotos,
B-294337, Oct. 15, 2004, 2004 CPD  paragraph 211 at 8; see Gentex
Corp.--W. Operations,
B-291793 et al., Mar. 25, 2003, 2003 CPD paragraph 66 at 24.  We find the
Army's consideration of the duration of Chenega's prior contract efforts
as part of the evaluation of the offeror's past performance here was
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

   It is self-evident, we think, that the length or duration of an offeror's
prior contract efforts logically relates to both the relevance and quality
of an offeror's past performance.  See EastCo Bldg. Servs., Inc.,
B-275334, B-275334.2, Feb. 10, 1997, 97-1 CPD paragraph 83 at 3-4 (finding
that an agency reasonably considered contract duration as part of a
determination of the similarity of an offeror's past performance); SWR,
Inc.
--Protests & Costs, B-294266.2 et al., Apr. 22, 2005, 2005 CPD paragraph
94 at 6 (finding that the agency reasonably gave less weight to a prior
contract that had been performed for less than 1 year).  In evaluating an
offeror's likelihood of successful performance, a prior contract effort
that is of brief or limited duration is simply not as probative of an
offeror's record as a contract for a lengthier period of time.  See SWR,
Inc.--Protests & Costs, supra.

   The RFP here required offerors to list prior contracts, which would be
evaluated for past performance, and to indicate for each contract (among
other things) the period of performance.  The solicitation also stated
that the evaluation of past performance would consider the degree to which
each offeror's previous performance was similar or related to the task
area functions set forth in the RFP.  Chenega and other offerors were,
therefore, on notice from these requirements that, in judging whether a
prior contract would be deemed similar and relevant, the Army's evaluation
would include consideration of contract duration.  See EastCo Bldg.
Servs., Inc., supra; ORI Servs. Corp., B-261225, July 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD
paragraph 55 at 5.  Given the potential duration of the contract under the
RFP (1 year with 4 option years), and the fact that Chenega's
Fort Dix contract had been performed for only 1 month at the time of the
evaluation here,[6] we find the agency's decision to give it no weight and
not to consider it as relevant to the evaluation of Chenega's past
performance was neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with the
solicitation.

   Chenega also argues that the evaluation of its past performance was
unreasonable because the Army failed to give the protester sufficient
credit for its APG and Fort McCoy contracts.  Specifically, Chenega argues
that its APG and Fort McCoy contracts each demonstrated relevance in all
task areas claimed, albeit as internal aspects of the contractor's
operations.  Chenega also maintains that if the contract services provided
in each instance were performed well, it must follow that all internal
component tasks must also have been performed well.  Chenega contends that
had the Army properly evaluated its APG and Fort McCoy contract efforts,
it would have received a rating of low performance risk.  We disagree.

   The narrative description within Chenega's proposal described its APG
contract as involving armed security guard services for 22 Army
installations staffed with a total of 1,575 security officers.  AR, Tab H,
Chenega Past Performance Proposal, at 5-6.  While Chenega claimed that its
APG contract demonstrated its experience in six CSBS task areas (i.e.,
plans, training, mobilization, security, human resources, and services),
Chenega's proposal indicated only that it performed planning, training,
mobilizing and other related functions as necessary to ensure the
performance of the armed security guard services.  Id. at 6.  Similarly,
Chenega's narrative description of the Fort McCoy contract, which claimed
relevant experience in the training, human resources, and finance task
areas, also described many internal functions.  Id. at 17-18.  In its
review of Chenega's APG and Fort McCoy contracts, the PPET found that the
experience claimed related mainly to the contractor's internal processes,
and that the offeror's proposal failed to demonstrate relevant experience
in the CSBS task areas as described in the solicitation.[7]  AR, Tab I,
PPET Consensus Evaluation of Chenega, at 1.

   It is an offeror's responsibility to submit a proposal with adequately
detailed information to allow a meaningful review by the agency.  Ace Info
Solutions, Inc.,
B-295450.2, Mar. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD paragraph 75 at 8; Interstate Gen.
Gov't Contractors, Inc., B-290137.2, June 21, 2002, 2002 CPD paragraph 105
at 5.  Here, the RFP required a demonstration by the offeror in its
proposal of its relevant experience in the task areas as described in the
solicitation.  By contrast, notwithstanding the claims of relevant
experience by the protester, the agency reasonably determined that the
experience actually demonstrated by Chenega's proposal failed to
adequately relate to the CSBS task areas.  As Chenega has not shown, or
even argued, that its proposal demonstrates the task area experience
claimed, we find that the agency's evaluation of Chenega's past
performance here was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the
solicitation.

   Lastly, Chenega argues that, even assuming the Army's evaluation of its
Fort Dix, McCoy, and APG contracts was proper, the assignment of an
average risk rating was unreasonable.  Chenega contends that all of the
information received by the agency regarding the quality of its
performance was positive, and the experience demonstrated by its prior
contracts, if not identical to the RFP requirements, was clearly similar. 
In light of the agency's determination that Chenega failed to demonstrate
successful past performance in all CSBS task areas, we find the average
risk rating assigned by the Army to Chenega's past performance to be
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.  Chenega's argument, that
the agency should essentially ignore the offeror's lack of relevant
experience and consider only the quality of its past performance, amounts
to mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation, which does not render
it unreasonable.   

   Chenega also protests that the agency's revised source selection decision
was improper.  Specifically, Chenega alleges that the Army's tradeoff
determination consisted of a mere recitation of evaluation factors and
ratings, and failed to properly document the agency's rationale for the
tradeoffs made, including the benefits associated with additional costs.

   In a best-value procurement, it is the function of the source selection
authority to perform a tradeoff between price and non-price factors, that
is, to determine whether one proposal's superiority under the non-price
factors is worth a higher price.  See Leach Mgmt. Consulting Corp.,
B-292493.2, Oct. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD paragraph 175 at 3-4; Ocean Tech.
Servs., Inc., B-288659, Nov. 27, 2001, 2001 CPD paragraph 193 at 5-6. 
Where a tradeoff is made, the source selection decision must be
documented, and the documentation must include the rationale for any
tradeoffs made, including the benefits associated with additional
costs.[8]  Federal Acquisition Regulation

   Section 15.101-1(c), 15.308; All Star-Cabaco Enter., Joint Venture,
B-290133, B-290133.2, June 25, 2002, 2002 CPD paragraph 127 at 8-9.

   In conducting the tradeoff here, the SSA properly premised her
determination upon a recognition that the solicitation permitted tradeoffs
between the price and past performance evaluation factors, with past
performance considered significantly more important than price.  AR, Tab
X, Amended Source Selection Decision, at 2.  The SSA then considered
Chenega's proposed price and performance risk (rated as average) in
comparison to the seven offerors previously selected for contract award
(all of which were rated as low risk).  The SSA determined that
notwithstanding the fact that Chenega's proposed price was second lowest
in comparison to the selected offerors,[9] Chenega's price savings in
comparison to the offeror's higher performance risk was not sufficient to
justify an award.   The SSA specifically found that the risk associated
with Chenega's lack of relevant past performance (previously determined to
be lacking in 6 of the 12 CSBS task areas) did not overcome the associated
cost savings to the agency.  Id. at 3.

   The propriety of such a price/past performance tradeoff decision turns not
on the difference in scores or ratings per se, but on whether the
selection official's judgment concerning the significance of the
difference was reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP's
evaluation scheme.  Continental RPVs,
B-292768.6, Apr. 5, 2004, 2004 CPD paragraph 103 at 6-7; Efficiency Mgmt.
& Eng'g Co.; Norcor Techs. Corp., B-292676, B-292676.2, Oct. 31, 2003,
2003 CPD paragraph 194 at 6.  Contrary to the protester's assertions, we
find the record here demonstrates that the SSA's comparison of proposals
and award decision were based, not on a mechanical comparison of the
evaluation ratings, but on the underlying merits of the offerors'
proposals as reflected in their risk ratings.  As stated above, the Army
in its evaluation concluded that Chenega lacked relevant experience in 6
of the 12 CSBS task areas, thereby increasing the risk that Chenega would
not successfully perform the required effort.  In considering whether to
make award to Chenega, the SSA made the judgment that the greater risk
associated with its offer was not offset by the cost savings involved;
this is the rationale for her decision not to make award to Chenega.  We
cannot agree with the protester that the agency was required to do more in
its tradeoff of Chenega's lower price and higher performance risk.

   In sum, consistent with the RFP's provision that performance risk
considerations were significantly more important than price
considerations, the SSA reasonably concluded that the cost savings
associated with Chenega's offer were not justified in light of the higher
risk associated with its proposal.  Under these circumstances, we see no
basis to question the agency's decision not to make award to Chenega.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

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

   [1] The RFP established an "eastern suite" of geographical locations,
consisting of Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort
Campbell, Kentucky; Fort Dix, New Jersey; Fort Drum, New York; Fort
Eustis, Virginia; and Fort Stewart, Georgia; and a "western suite" of
geographical locations consisting of Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Carson,
Colorado; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; Fort Lewis,
Washington; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin; Fort Polk, Louisiana; Fort Riley,
Kansas; and Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  The solicitation contemplated multiple
awards of all functional task areas for each suite of geographical
locations.   RFP Section B3-4.

   [2] The RFP also stated that "[t]he Government intends to award multiple
ID/IQ contracts to the offerors determined to be 'highly qualified' based
on their technical proposal, with low performance risk and fair and
reasonable pricing."  RFP Section M1.

   [3] As set forth below, the RFP also set forth narrative descriptions for
each of the performance risk ratings to be used in the evaluation of
offerors' past performance.

   [4] The source selection decision indicates that Chenega's total evaluated
price of $32,637,327 was the second lowest of the 10 technically highly
qualified offerors, whose evaluated prices ranged from $31,482,988 to
$51,403,674.  AR, Tab R, Source Selection Decision, at 3-4.

   [5] The SSA also originally found as "not eligible for award" all offerors
whose proposals were not evaluated as highly qualified technically or low
performance risk.  AR, Tab R, Source Selection Decision, at 11.

   [6] We note that the SSA also further investigated Chenega's Fort Dix
contract and determined that the evaluation of past performance used for
award of the Fort Dix contract was different from the past performance
evaluation conducted for the CSBS requirement here.  AR, Tab R, Source
Selection Decision, at 8.

   [7] The PPET states that the Fort McCoy contract "appears to be a very
important contract that may contain past performance directly related to
the [RFP], however; no detail is presented.  The write-up deals mainly
with internal company actions."  AR, Tab I, PPET Consensus Evaluation of
Chenega, at 1.

   [8] This explanation can be given by the source selection authority in the
award decision, or it can be evidenced from the documents on which the
source selection decision is based.  TRW, Inc., B-260788.2, Aug. 2, 1995,
96-1 CPD paragraph 11.

   [9] The SSA also considered the fact that Chenega's proposed price of
$32.6 million was $10.7 million less than the $43.3 million average
proposed price of the seven offerors previously selected for award.