TITLE: B-297654, Greater Pacific Aquatics, February 2, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297654
DATE: February 2, 2006
****************************************************
B-297654, Greater Pacific Aquatics, February 2, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Greater Pacific Aquatics

   File: B-297654

   Date: February 2, 2006

   Daniel C. O'Keeffe for the protester.

   Erik Kattner, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Under solicitation for lifeguard services, procuring agency reasonably
   rated protester neutral under past performance evaluation factor where
   protester's proposal showed that protester had managed swim team, but had
   not performed lifeguard services.

   DECISION

   Greater Pacific Aquatics protests the award of a contract for lifeguard
   services to Nora Camacho under Department of the Air Force request for
   proposals (RFP) No. FA5240-05-R-0014. Greater Pacific complains that the
   agency improperly evaluated its past performance.

   We deny the protest.

   The solicitation, for lifeguard services at Anderson Air Force Base (AFB)
   in Guam, provided for a "best value" award based on three evaluation
   factors: technical, past performance and price. Technical proposals were
   evaluated on a pass/fail basis; those that were rated pass then were
   evaluated for past performance, resulting in a performance risk rating,
   and price. For the past performance evaluation, offerors were to provide
   information about recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar
   services performed by the contractor, key personnel or significant
   subcontractors. The solicitation indicated that the past performance
   evaluation would take into account responses to performance
   questionnaires, references provided by the offerors, and other information
   independently obtained by the government. The solicitation stated that
   offerors with no similar past performance would be assigned a neutral
   performance risk rating.

   Five offerors responded to the solicitation; only Greater Pacific's and
   Camacho's were rated technically acceptable, and both were rated neutral
   for performance risk. The agency therefore made award to Comacho based on
   its low price.

   Greater Pacific maintains that it should have received a performance risk
   rating higher than neutral. In this regard, the protester's proposal did
   not include any references, completed questionnaires or contract numbers
   for contracts previously performed, but merely described a contract
   managing the swim team at Capehart Pool at Anderson AFB. Greater Pacific
   argues that the swim team contract was relevant--and thus should have
   resulted in a rating higher than neutral--because it involved management
   of the swim team and assistant swim coaches, and required communication
   directly with the manager and assistant manager of the outdoor recreation
   department at the base.

   The evaluation of past performance is a matter within the discretion of
   the contracting agency, which our Office will review only to ensure that
   the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation
   criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Sterling Servs., Inc.,
   B-286326, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 208 at 2-3.

   The evaluation was unobjectionable. As noted, the RFP called for a listing
   of prior contracts covering the same or similar services. The performance
   work statement (PWS) for the solicitation required the contractor, among
   other things, to provide lifeguards, follow a policies and procedures
   manual and quality control plan developed by the contractor, vacuum and
   scrub the pools, perform emergency clean-up procedures of any foreign
   substance (such as blood or vomit) in the pool facility, and conduct
   inspections to ensure that all required services were being performed. PWS
   at 2, 3. The contract described in the protester's proposal involved
   managing the swim team, with responsibility for providing swimming
   instruction, holding team tryouts and practices, planning team functions
   and competitions, and cooperating with other pool activities and
   personnel. Proposal at 4. In our view, the Air Force reasonably found
   that, as described, this contract did not encompass duties similar to
   those described in the PWS for the lifeguard services contract. This being
   the case, the agency reasonably rated Greater Pacific neutral for
   performance risk. There thus is no basis for us to object to the award.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel