TITLE: B-296511.3, Triad Logistics Services Corporation, October 20, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296511.3
DATE: October 20, 2005
******************************************************************
B-296511.3, Triad Logistics Services Corporation, October 20, 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: Triad Logistics Services Corporation

   File: B-296511.3

   Date: October 20, 2005

   Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester.

   William A. Roberts, III, Esq., and Richard B. O'Keeffe, Jr., Esq., Wiley
   Rein & Fielding LLP, for M1 Support Services, Inc., an intervenor.

   Maj. Lawrence M. Anderson, and Pamela A. Dugger, Esq., Department of the
   Air Force, for the agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging past performance evaluation is denied where record
   shows evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's
   evaluation scheme.

   DECISION

   Triad Logistics Services Corporation protests the Department of the Air
   Force's award of a contract to M1 Support Services, Inc. under request for
   proposals (RFP) No. FA4897-05-R-0010, for transient support services.
   Triad challenges the Air Force's evaluation of the offerors' past
   performance.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, which was set aside for small businesses owned by
   service-disabled veterans, contemplated the award of a fixed-price
   contract for a 10-month base period, with four 1-year option periods, to
   provide transient support services at Mountain Home Air Force Base,
   Idaho.[1] The solicitation stated that award would be made on a "best
   value" basis, considering price and past performance. Proposals would be
   assigned a past performance rating of exceptional/high confidence, very
   good/significant confidence, satisfactory/some confidence, neutral/unknown
   confidence, marginal/little confidence, or unsatisfactory/no confidence.
   Past performance was significantly more important than price.

   The agency received five proposals, including Triad's and M1's. Triad, a
   recently formed company, offered a price of $1,116,686, and proposed to
   subcontract with [DELETED], while M1 offered a price of $1,026,962, and
   proposed no subcontractors. After receiving notice that the contract had
   been awarded to M1, Triad challenged the evaluation in a protest filed in
   our Office. Thereafter, the agency proposed corrective action; it would
   reevaluate the proposals and make a new award decision. We therefore
   dismissed the protest as academic (B-296511, B-296511.2, June 30, 2005).

   In the reevaluation, Triad's proposal received a past performance rating
   of very good/significant confidence. The agency noted that Triad, as a
   recently formed company, had submitted no past performance information for
   itself or for its president or chief executive officer. While this would
   result in a rating of neutral/unknown confidence, the agency also noted
   that [DELETED] had received four exceptional past performance ratings for
   contracts with the same requirements. Considering Triad's lack of past
   performance along with [DELETED] exceptional ratings, the agency decided
   that Triad warranted an overall past performance rating of very
   good/significant confidence. This reflected the agency's view that,
   notwithstanding [DELETED] exceptional ratings, there was some risk
   associated with having a prime contractor with no past performance of its
   own perform 51 percent of the contract work.[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab
   11, Evaluation Team Worksheet, at 4.

   The agency also rated M1's past performance very good/significant
   confidence. Of the four contracts M1 submitted to be evaluated for past
   performance, two were found to be partially relevant, and M1 received
   exceptional ratings for its performance under both. Rather than rating
   M1's past performance exceptional/high confidence overall, however, the
   agency rated M1 very good to reflect the fact that M1's past performance
   was only partially relevant. Id. at 5. Since M1's proposed price was low,
   the agency again determined that M1's proposal offered the best value.

   Triad maintains that the agency improperly used its lack of relevant past
   performance to lower its overall past performance rating from exceptional
   to very good. Triad states that it was entitled to the exceptional rating
   due to its subcontractor's past performance, and that lowering its rating
   based on Triad's own lack of past performance was inconsistent with the
   statement in the solicitation that an offeror's lack of past performance
   would have "no positive or negative evaluation significance." RFP at 17;
   see Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

   We will examine an agency's evaluation of offerors' past performance to
   ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's
   evaluation criteria and relevant statutes and regulations. Hanley Indus.,
   Inc., B-295318, Feb. 2, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 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 para. 129 at 5.

   The agency's evaluation of Triad's past performance was unobjectionable.
   As a general matter, there is nothing improper in an agency's giving
   weight to an offeror's own lack of relevant past performance--and the
   neutral weighting that goes with it--along with giving weight to, for
   example, a proposed subcontractor's past performance, when developing an
   overall rating for that offeror.[3] See Joint Mgmt. & Tech. Servs.,
   B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 208 at 6 (assigning a
   neutral rating to an offeror with no past performance was reasonable,
   despite fact that three of four team members had high past performance
   ratings, since the offeror was to be the managing concern for performance
   of the contract). Further, while a neutral past performance rating was to
   have "no positive or negative evaluation significance" under the terms of
   the RFP, this provision is not relevant here, since Triad's proposal
   received an overall rating of very good/significant confidence, not
   neutral. We do not read the solicitation as prohibiting the agency from
   factoring an offeror's own lack of past performance into its overall past
   performance rating, which the RFP specifically stated would encompass
   consideration of the past performance of predecessor companies, key
   personnel, and subcontractors, as well as the past performance of the
   offeror itself. RFP at 16.

   Triad further argues that, even if averaging its own neutral rating with
   its subcontractor's exceptional rating were permissible, the averaging
   here was unreasonable, since four exceptional ratings and one neutral
   rating should have resulted in an exceptional, rather than a very good,
   rating. This argument is without merit. Since Triad was to perform over 50
   percent of the work, it was reasonable for the agency to give significant
   weight to Triad's lack of experience in determining the appropriate
   overall past performance rating for the firm. In any case, we view this
   argument as, essentially, mere disagreement with the agency's judgment,
   which is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. See
   Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing, supra.

   Triad also argues that the agency's assigning M1 a very good/significant
   confidence past performance rating was unreasonable. Triad challenges the
   agency's reliance on the two M1 contracts that received exceptional past
   performance ratings. Regarding the first of these contracts--a subcontract
   for helicopter services at Kirtland Air Force Base--Triad maintains that
   the agency improperly failed to consider that M1 had been performing for
   only 1 year, was performing only a relatively small percentage (9 percent)
   of the overall contract, and that the reference was provided by M1's
   mentor firm. The agency reasonably considered the contract to be relevant.
   The RFP did not require offerors to have performed a certain percentage of
   the work under a prior contract, or to have performed for a minimum amount
   of time in order for the contract to be considered relevant past
   performance. Also, Triad points to nothing on the face of the referral
   that called its credibility into question, notwithstanding M1's
   relationship with the reference.

   Triad challenges the agency's reliance on the second contract--a
   subcontract for C-21A aircraft logistics support--based on the fact that
   the contract was only in a "phase-in" period at the time of the
   evaluation. Triad alleges that reliance on this contract was inconsistent
   with the RFP statement that "relevant" contracts are those requiring the
   same complexity of effort as the contract to be awarded. RFP at 15. Again,
   we find that the agency's reliance on this contract was reasonable. Since
   the contract was for services that closely aligned with the services
   sought under the RFP, we think the agency reasonably could assume that the
   work performed during the phase-in period would be similarly aligned and
   therefore involve similar complexities. In this respect, M1's proposal
   explained that the contract included aircraft maintenance, aircraft launch
   and recovery, logistics support, inspections, and various other tasks that
   were similar to the requirements under the RFP here. AR, Tab 12, M1
   Proposal, Past Performance, at 3. The proposal further explained that the
   contracting officer and program manager have been highly satisfied with
   M1's technical capability to phase-in its portion of the contract. Id.
   Triad maintains that the contracting officer was unaware that this
   contract was only in its phase-in period at the time of her evaluation.
   The contracting officer states, however, that she was fully aware that the
   contract was only in its phase-in period--she points out that the
   evaluator's notes, as well as the proposal itself, clearly stated that the
   contract was in its phase-in period--and that she took this into
   consideration in her evaluation. Contracting Officer's Supplement
   Statement of Facts, at 1-2. Triad has not established otherwise.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Transient support services are various functions related to management
   and handling of transient aircraft, including arrival/processing/departure
   services, facilities maintenance, inspections, foreign object debris
   removal, and technical orders/publications/forms maintenance.

   [2] The solicitation restricted the awardee from subcontracting out more
   than 49 percent of the work.

   [3] The protester also asserts that the agency's reduction of [DELETED]
   exceptional ratings to reflect Triad's lack of its own past performance
   had the effect of failing to give Triad full credit for its
   subcontractor's past performance, in violation of an RFP provision stating
   that major subcontractors' past performance "will be rated as highly as
   past performance information for the principal offeror." RFP at 16.
   However, we find no basis for concluding that Triad's overall very
   good/significant confidence rating reflects other than a reasonable
   weighting of Triad's own neutral rating and [DELETED] exceptional ratings.