TITLE: B-297313, PHT Corporation, December 8, 2005
BNUMBER: B-297313
DATE: December 8, 2005
*******************************************
B-297313, PHT Corporation, December 8, 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: PHT Corporation

   File: B-297313

   Date: December 8, 2005

   Cyrus E. Phillips IV, Esq., for the protester.

   Garry S. Grossman, Esq., and Aaron M. Forester, Esq., SchiffHardin, for
   Airtronic Services, Inc., an intervenor.

   Victor G. Vogel, Esq., and Joseph M. Picchiotti, Esq., Army Materiel
   Command, for the agency.

   Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Where solicitation defined relevant past performance as performance on
   contracts with a value over $500,000 that demonstrates the successful
   manufacture of M9 magazine cartridge or similar item, award to offeror
   with no relevant past performance was reasonable where source selection
   authority recognized the awardee's lack of relevant past performance, but
   nonetheless reasonably concluded, consistent with the solicitation, that
   the awardee's overall past performance record justified a "moderate" risk
   rating.

   DECISION

   PHT Corporation protests the award of a contract to Airtronic Services,
   Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52H09-04-R-0119, issued by the
   Army Materiel Command for M9 magazine cartridges. PHT maintains that the
   agency improperly evaluated the past performance record of Airtronic and
   that Airtronic's price is unreasonably low.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on April 26, 2005, as a 100-percent small business
   set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a
   guaranteed minimum quantity of 900,000 M9 magazine cartridges. The RFP
   provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal
   represented the "best value" based on an evaluation of past
   performance/risk and price. The RFP stated that past performance was
   slightly more important than price. Past performance was to be rated
   adjectively as follows:

   Very Low Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, very little doubt
   exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

   Low Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, little doubt exists
   that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

   Moderate Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, some doubt exists
   that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

   High Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, significant doubt
   exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

   Unknown Risk: The offeror had little or no recent/relevant past
   performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction.

   RFP sect. M.2.a.

   Under the past performance evaluation factor, the RFP stated that the
   government could consider the currency, degree of relevance, source, and
   context of the offeror's past performance information, as well as general
   trends in the offeror's performance, and the firm's demonstrated
   corrective actions, and could use information obtained from other sources
   in addition to references furnished by the offeror. The RFP required an
   offeror to submit contract references representing its recent, relevant
   performance. RFP sect. L.5. The RFP defined "recent" as any contract under
   which any performance, delivery, or corrective action had occurred within
   the last 3 years of the issuance of the subject RFP. The RFP defined
   "relevant" as "performance on contracts with a contract value over
   $500,000 that demonstrates the offeror has successfully manufactured or
   provided M9 Magazine Cartridge or similar items." Id.

   The agency received five proposals. After evaluating these proposals, the
   agency established a competitive range of three proposals, including the
   proposals of PHT and Airtronic. Discussions were conducted with these
   three offerors.

   To address the past performance evaluation factor, Airtronic initially
   submitted information for 10 contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Source
   Selection Decision, at 3. During discussions, the agency notified
   Airtronic that it had determined that none of the 10 referenced contracts
   met the RFP definition of relevant, and requested that Airtronic identify
   relevant contracts. In response, Airtronic acknowledged that most of its
   government contract references only provided evidence of either
   Airtronic's machining capabilities or its ability to deliver on time. AR,
   Tab 7, Airtronic's Response to Discussions. Airtronic identified several
   additional contracts, but these contracts did not meet the relevance
   requirement.

   While the agency recognized that Airtronic's references did not meet the
   relevance definition in the RFP, the agency concluded that Airtronic's
   references showed general performance trends for manufacturing and
   production of military items, including components for the Abrams tank.
   AR, Tab 4, Source Selection Decision, at 4. The contracting officer, who
   served as the source selection authority, noted Airtronic's delivery on
   three government contracts with no delinquencies. The contracting officer
   further noted that in the past 12 months, Airtronic delivered on [deleted]
   contracts with [deleted] line items, with just [deleted] of these line
   items being delinquent (less than 30 days). The contracting officer also
   reviewed the Product Quality Deficiency Reports issued to Airtronic and
   noted that Airtronic had a [deleted] percent past performance rating for
   the Federal Stock Classification most relevant to the current
   solicitation. While the contracting officer specifically recognized that
   Airtronic's contract references "failed to meet the $500,000 threshold to
   be considered relevant, which might suggest that the offeror merit[ed] an
   Unknown Risk rating" for the past performance evaluation factor, the
   contracting officer nevertheless concluded that in assessing Airtronic's
   overall general past performance history, a moderate risk rating was
   appropriate. Id.

   PHT was initially rated high risk under the past performance evaluation
   factor. In its original proposal, PHT indicated that it would manufacture
   the cartridge using Triple K Manufacturing as a consultant. To demonstrate
   its past performance, PHT provided only one reference to demonstrate its
   own past performance record; however, that reference did not satisfy the
   $500,000 threshold. PHT provided four references for Triple K that
   demonstrated that Triple K had supplied similar items; however, these
   references showed that there were some problems both with the quality of
   some of Triple K's items and with the timeliness of delivery by Triple K.
   AR, Tab 30, Initial Evaluation of PHT. Following discussions, PHT proposed
   Triple K as a subcontractor to PHT, rather than as a consultant, and
   provided additional information concerning the quality and timeliness of
   Triple K's past performance, which included an explanation of why some of
   Triple K's magazines supplied under a previous contract did not function
   properly. As a result, PHT's past performance risk rating was changed to
   moderate. AR, Tab 31, Final Evaluation of PHT.

   Upon completion of the agency's review, the total evaluated prices and
   past performance ratings for the three offerors were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |       Offeror        |    Past Performance     |    Evaluated Price    |
   |----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------|
   |      Airtronic       |      Moderate Risk      |     $22,471,600]      |
   |----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------|
   |         PHT          |      Moderate Risk      |      $[deleted]       |
   |----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------|
   |    Third Offeror     |      Very Low Risk      |      $[deleted]       |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 4, Source Selection Decision, at 9.

   Based on the evaluation results, the contracting officer concluded that
   since Airtronic and PHT received the same past performance rating of
   moderate risk and since Airtronic proposed a lower price, award to
   Airtronic represented the best value to the government. This protest
   followed.

   PHT contends that, since Airtronic provided no relevant past performance
   references because none of Airtronic's references satisfied the $500,000
   threshold, Airtronic should have received an "unknown risk" rating,
   instead of a moderate risk rating. As a result, PHT argues that the
   agency's tradeoff decision was flawed. Based on our review of the record,
   the agency's evaluation and selection decision were reasonable and
   supported by the record.

   Here, as explained above, the record shows that the source selection
   decision was based upon a detailed evaluation of Airtronic's past
   performance record. In the source selection document, the contracting
   officer clearly acknowledged that Airtronic had no relevant contracts as
   defined under the RFP and that, in accordance with the solicitation,
   Airtronic could have received an unknown risk rating. AR, Tab 4, Source
   Selection Decision, at 4, 9. Nonetheless, the contracting officer,
   consistent with the past performance evaluation factor, which permitted
   consideration of the offeror's overall general past performance history,
   concluded that Airtronic's past performance history of manufacturing
   military components indicated an acceptable level of performance risk that
   justified award to Airtronic at its lower price. Id. [2] We see nothing
   improper in this conclusion.

   PHT also argues that Airtronic's price is unreasonably low. With respect
   to a fixed-price award, a protester's claim that an offeror submitted an
   "unreasonably" low price--even that the price is below the cost of
   performance--is not a valid basis for protest. An offeror, in its business
   judgment, properly may decide to submit a price that is extremely low.
   Diemaster Tool, Inc., B-238877, Apr. 5, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 375 at 2. An
   agency decision that the firm can perform the contract at the offered
   price is an affirmative determination of responsibility, which we will not
   review except in circumstances not alleged here. Bid Protest Regulations,
   4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(c) (2005).

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] In its protest, PHT also objected to the agency's evaluation of PHT's
   past performance and contended that PHT's risk rating should have been
   more favorable. In its report to our Office responding to the protest, the
   agency provided its evaluation record, including the agency's basis for
   the rating. In its comments to the agency report, PHT failed to address
   the agency's response. As a result, we consider this issue to be abandoned
   and will not address it. Datum Timing, Div. of Datum, Inc., B-254493, Dec.
   17, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 328 at 5.

   [2] We note that PHT's past performance rating of moderate risk also was
   based on the agency's evaluation of the overall past performance of PHT
   and its subcontractor, Triple K.