TITLE: B-295496.3, Poly-Pacific Technologies Inc., January 18, 2006
BNUMBER: B-295496.3
DATE: January 18, 2006
************************************************************
B-295496.3, Poly-Pacific Technologies Inc., January 18, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Poly-Pacific Technologies Inc.

   File: B-295496.3

   Date: January 18, 2006

   Karen Christian for the protester.

   Maj. Peter H. Tran, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably determined that the contracts referenced in the
   awardee's proposal were relevant to the agency's past performance
   evaluation.

   DECISION

   Poly-Pacific Technologies Inc. protests the award of a contract to
   Opti-Blast Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912JC-04-R-4020,
   issued by the National Guard Bureau, for plastic and glass media for use
   in removing paint from Army vehicles, and for the recycling of the used
   media. Poly-Pacific argues that the agency's evaluation of Opti-Blast's
   proposal under the solicitation's past performance evaluation factor was
   unreasonable.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery,
   indefinite- quantity contract for a base period of 1 year with two 1-year
   option periods. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the
   offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the "best value" to the
   government, based upon the evaluation factors of past performance,
   technical, and price. The RFP specified that while proposals would be
   evaluated on a qualitative basis under the past performance factor, they
   would be rated as either "go" or "no-go" under the technical factor.

   The agency received proposals from three offerors, including Poly-Pacific
   and Opti-Blast. The proposals of Poly-Pacific and Opti-Blast were both
   evaluated as "low risk" under the past performance factor and "go" under
   the technical evaluation factor, at evaluated prices of $2,385,000 for
   Poly-Pacific and $2,216,000 for Opti-Blast. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10,
   Source Selection Evaluation Report and Award Decision, at 1-3; Tab 16,
   Price Evaluation. The source selection authority (SSA) selected
   Opti-Blast's proposal for award, and this protest followed.

   Poly-Pacific argues that the agency's evaluation of Opti-Blast's proposal
   under the past performance factor was unreasonable.

   The RFP informed offerors that "[e]valuators will consider current,
   relevant and trends of the performance information while conducting its
   performance evaluation," and that "[c]urrent is performance occurring
   within the last five (5) years for the period beginning May 1999 through
   the solicitation release date." The solicitation added that "[i]n
   assessing relevancy to the solicitation requirement, the Government will
   consider an offeror's references for the similarity of product, size,
   scope and complexity of contract performed to those required for the
   proposed effort," and that "[c]ontracts that may be considered similar in
   size, scope and complexity are projects requiring delivery and recycling
   of the product within 10% of the quantities required herein." The
   solicitation concluded that under the past performance factor an
   "[e]valuation will be made of the Quality and extent of related past
   performance comparable to the requirements of this solicitation." RFP at
   33. In order to facilitate the past performance evaluation, the RFP stated
   that proposals were to include "information on the number of contracts
   held, contract number, contract period, description of material an[d] work
   performed, contract dollar value, and point of contact and telephone
   number" regarding "contracts awarded to the contractor within the prior
   five (5) years." RFP at 31.

   Opti-Blast's proposal included information regarding nine contracts
   awarded since 1999 as well as a lengthy client list. AR, Tab 22,
   Opti-Blast Proposal. The record reflects that three completed past
   performance questionnaires were received by the agency regarding the
   contracts detailed in Opti-Blast's proposal. AR, Tab 23, Completed Past
   Performance Questionnaires. The agency found Opti-Blast's performance of
   two of these contracts to be "very relevant," given the quantity of media
   and work involved, with one of the references rating Opti-Blast's overall
   performance as "exceptional" and the other as "very good." Opti-Blast's
   performance of the third contract was found to be only "semi-relevant"
   given that, among other things, it was for a relatively small quantity of
   media; this reference evaluated Opti-Blast's overall performance as
   "exceptional." The agency assigned a rating of "low risk" to Opti-Blast's
   proposal under the past performance factor based upon Opti-Blast's
   performance of the two "very relevant" contracts. AR, Tab 10, Source
   Selection Evaluation Report and Award Decision, at 1.

   In challenging the agency's rating of Opti-Blast's proposal under the past
   performance factor as "low risk" the protester asserts, without
   explanation, that "Opti-Blast did not have the required experience or
   history in recycling (90% of the intended volume) at the time the original
   solicitation was closed (June 2004)." Protest at 1; see Protester's
   Comments at 2.

   Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of the offerors' past
   performance, an agency has the discretion to determine the scope of the
   offerors' performance histories to be considered, provided all proposals
   are evaluated on the same basis and in a manner consistent with the
   solicitation's requirements. Acepex Mgmt. Corp., B-283080 et al., Oct. 4,
   1999, 99-2 CPD para. 77 at 5.

   We first note that the protester's argument here appears to be based on
   its belief that the RFP mandated that a successful offeror have performed
   contracts involving quantities of media within 10 percent of the estimated
   quantity for this contract to be considered for award. Notwithstanding the
   inartful wording of the past performance evaluation factor (set out
   above), we do not believe the terms of the RFP expressly require that an
   offeror, as a prerequisite for award, have performed a contract of such
   size; nor did it prohibit other contracts from being considered similar in
   size, scope and complexity where reasonable.

   In any event, the record reflects that contrary to Poly-Pacific's
   assertion, Opti-Blast has in fact performed one contract involving the
   same quantity of media as estimated by the RFP here as well as another
   contract involving more than 80 percent of the RFP's estimated quantity
   here. Both of these contracts were considered "very relevant" by the
   agency. AR, Tab 22, Opti-Blast's Proposal, Past Performance Documentation,
   at 1-2; Tab 23, Opti-Blast's Completed Past Performance Questionnaires.
   Giving due deference to the agency's broad discretion to determine whether
   a particular contract is relevant to the evaluation of past performance,
   we believe that the agency's consideration and evaluation of the two
   contracts discussed above, and its evaluation of Opti-Blast's proposal as
   "low risk" under the past performance, were unobjectionable. All Phase
   Env'l, Inc., B-292919.2 et al., Feb. 4, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 62 at 7.

   We further note that as pointed out by the agency report, Poly-Pacific's
   proposal was evaluated as "low risk" under the past performance factor,
   even though neither the proposal nor Poly-Pacific's references "provided
   any information on the quantities, poundage, or contract price of previous
   contracts" with regard to the two contracts for which the agency received
   completed past performance questionnaires. AR at 8; see Tab 10, Source
   Selection Evaluation Report and Award Decision, at 2. That is,
   Poly-Pacific's proposal provided information regarding the value of the
   contract and amount of media provided for only 2 of the 14 contracts
   listed, and neither of these 2 references completed past performance
   questionnaires for the agency to consider under the past performance
   evaluation factor. As such, the record demonstrates that Poly-Pacific
   benefited from by the flexible way in which the agency approached the
   evaluation of both offerors' past performance, and the protester cannot
   reasonably claim to have been prejudiced by the agency's use of such
   flexibility in assessing Opti-Blast's past performance.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The protester was not represented by counsel that could be admitted to
   a protective order and, therefore, did not have access to source selection
   sensitive and proprietary information. Accordingly, our discussion is
   necessarily general. Our conclusions, however, are based on our review of
   the entire record.