TITLE: B-297758.3, JWK International Corporation, August 31, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297758.3
DATE: August 31, 2006
**********************************************************
B-297758.3, JWK International Corporation, August 31, 2006

   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: JWK International Corporation

   File: B-297758.3

   Date: August 31, 2006

   Wayne A. Keup, Esq., for the protester.

   David B. Dempsey, Esq., and Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP,
   for Four Winds Services, Inc., an intervenor.

   Major Jeffrey Branstetter, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office
   of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
   decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest that agency should have considered experience of protester's
   proposed key personnel in evaluating protester's past performance is
   denied where record demonstrates that agency had a reasonable basis for
   deciding not to consider the qualifications of individual employees under
   the past performance evaluation factor.

   2. Agency reasonably determined that exceptional performance by
   protester's proposed subcontractor on contracts that involved only a
   portion of the work required under the solicitation was insufficient to
   demonstrate that protester could be expected to perform the effort
   solicited at issue successfully.

   DECISION

   JWK International Corporation (JWK) protests the failure of the Department
   of the Air Force to select its proposal for award under request for
   proposals (RFP) No. FA8601-05-R-0050, for fuels management services at
   Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. This protest follows the agency's
   reevaluation of proposals and reselection of an awardee in response to our
   decision sustaining a protest by United Paradyne Corporation (UPC). United
   Paradyne Corp., B-297758, Mar. 10, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 47. JWK argues
   that the Air Force's evaluation of its past performance and the agency's
   "best value" tradeoff determination were unreasonable.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP, which was issued on June 2, 2005, contemplated the award of a
   fixed-price contract and provided for the evaluation of proposals on the
   basis of three factors: mission capability, past performance, and price.
   Mission capability was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable
   basis, with only those proposals receiving ratings of acceptable
   proceeding to evaluation of past performance and price. Past performance
   and price, which were of approximately equal weight, were to be traded off
   against one another to determine which proposal represented the best value
   to the government.

   The solicitation provided for the assignment of performance confidence
   ratings to offerors based on their past performance. There were six
   possible ratings: exceptional/high confidence, very good/significant
   confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown confidence,
   marginal/little confidence, and unsatisfactory/no confidence. RFP at 45.
   Of significance to this protest, the RFP defined a rating of
   marginal/little confidence as follows:

   Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial doubts exist that
   the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the
   offeror's existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract
   requirements.

   Id. The RFP advised that the evaluation of past performance would be
   accomplished by reviewing offerors' relevant present and recent past
   performance; the solicitation defined relevant contracts as contracts for
   similar services with similar scope and complexity. The RFP provided that
   a "relevancy determination" of the offeror's present and past performance,
   including joint venture partners and/or major subcontractors, would be
   made. Contracts were to be rated for relevance in accordance with the
   following scale:

   Highly Relevant: Past/present effort involved essentially the same
   magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires including
   both facility and support operations.

   Relevant: Past/present effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and
   complexities this solicitation requires including both facility and
   support operations.

   Somewhat Relevant: Past/present effort involved some of the magnitude of
   effort and complexities this solicitation requires including facility or
   support operations.

   Not Relevant: Past/present effort involved little of the magnitude of
   effort and complexities that solicitation requires.

   RFP at 46.

   Nine proposals were received by the July 13, 2005 closing date. All were
   determined to be technically acceptable. After evaluation of past
   performance and price, the source selection authority (SSA) selected the
   proposal of Four Winds Services, Inc. (FWSI), to which the agency
   evaluators had assigned a performance confidence rating of
   satisfactory/confidence and which offered a price of $7,898,073, as
   representing the best value to the government. The agency awarded FWSI a
   contract on December 1.

   UPC subsequently filed a protest with our Office challenging the Air
   Force's evaluation of its past performance. By decision dated March 10,
   2006, we sustained UPC's protest, finding that the agency's approach to
   evaluating offerors' past performance was unreasonable. We explained that
   the agency had used the following methodology, which was not disclosed to
   offerors in the RFP, to arrive at a performance confidence rating for each
   offeror. After assessing the relevance of each contract identified by the
   offeror in its proposal, the Air Force had averaged these ratings to
   arrive at an overall relevance rating. It had then integrated this rating
   with a quality of performance rating, which it obtained by averaging the
   point scores on the performance questionnaires furnished by the offeror's
   references. We found that the agency's approach--averaging together
   relevant and non-relevant experience--was unreasonable because it
   penalized offerors with relevant experience, such as UPC, for their
   non-relevant experience. We concluded that the agency's methodology was
   further unreasonable in that it gave equal weight in the calculation of
   offerors' quality of performance ratings to highly relevant and
   non-relevant performance. We recommended that the agency reevaluate the
   past performance of UPC and the other offerors using an appropriate
   methodology, that is, one that took into consideration the relevance of a
   particular contractual effort in determining the weight to be assigned the
   offeror's performance of it. We further recommended that the agency make a
   new source selection decision, and, if a firm other than FWSI were
   selected, that it terminate the award to FWSI and make award to the
   offeror selected.

   The Air Force performed a reevaluation of offerors' past performance in
   response to our decision. To avoid penalizing offerors with more relevant
   experience for their less relevant experience, the agency evaluators
   assigned each offeror the relevance rating of its most relevant contract.
   In JWK's case, this resulted in a contract relevance rating of somewhat
   relevant, while in FWSI's case, it resulted in a rating of highly
   relevant.[1] The agency also reevaluated offerors' quality of performance,
   excluding from consideration performance on non-relevant contracts. The
   reevaluation resulted in quality of performance ratings of exceptional for
   JWK (and all other offerors except FWSI); FWSI's quality of performance
   was rated as very good.

   The evaluators then integrated the relevance ratings with the quality of
   performance ratings to derive a performance confidence rating for each
   offeror. In JWK's case, the agency assigned a performance confidence
   rating of marginal/little confidence, finding that since the protester's
   most relevant performance was only somewhat relevant, there was
   substantial doubt that it would perform successfully.[2] In this
   connection, the evaluators noted that it was "a logical conclusion . . .
   to have little confidence in a contractor that only performed a small
   portion of the critical elements, even though those few elements were
   performed exceptionally." Reevaluation Summary Assessment, May 12, 2006,
   at 3-4. The evaluators assigned FWSI a performance confidence rating of
   very good/significant confidence.

   The performance confidence ratings and prices of all offerors were as
   follows:

   Offeror Performance Confidence rating Price                                
                                                                              
   JWK Marginal/Little Confidence $7,411,769                                  
                                                                              
   FWSI Very Good/Significant Confidence $7,898,092                           
                                                                              
   Offeror A Exceptional/High Confidence [deleted]                            
                                                                              
   Offeror B Marginal/Little Confidence [deleted]                             
                                                                              
   Offeror C Exceptional/High Confidence [deleted]                            
                                                                              
   Offeror D Exceptional/High Confidence [deleted]                            
                                                                              
   Offeror E Exceptional/High Confidence [deleted]                            
                                                                              
   Offeror F Exceptional/High Confidence [deleted]                            
                                                                              
   Offeror G Exceptional/High Confidence [deleted]                            

   Source Selection Decision Document, Reevaluation, May 15, 2006, at 2.

   The SSA determined that FWSI's offer represented the best value to the
   government, reasoning as follows:

   The price for JWK is 6.56% lower than the cost of the selected contractor
   (FWSI), and I considered the $486,304 savings. However, JWK received a
   Marginal/Little Confidence Integrated Assessment rating, that as defined,
   indicates, "substantial doubts exist that the offeror will successfully
   perform the required effort." I felt this was a fair [rating] since this
   offeror had only limited experience in Fuels Management. I considered the
   savings offered but compared it against the associated risks. The
   environmental and safety issues, which are a significant part of this
   contract, rely on the experience level of the contractor and the Very
   Good/Significant Confidence rating received by FWSI is well worth the
   6.56% additional cost.

   I also considered [Offeror A], with a rating of Exceptional/High
   Confidence, and the third lowest [price]. However, with past performance
   and price being considered as approximately equal on this acquisition, the
   expenditure of additional monies for a degree of better performance is not
   considered to be in the best interest of the Government.

   Source Selection Decision, May 15, 2006, at 4.

   DISCUSSION

   JWK initially asserted that the assignment to its proposal of a relevance
   rating of only somewhat relevant was unreasonable because the proposal
   included a detailed explanation of the experience of JWK's proposed
   subcontractor, Maytag, in performing "undeniably relevant" fuels
   management contracts. Protest at 5. The protester also argued that it was
   inconsistent with the agency's original rating scheme, pursuant to which a
   relevance rating of somewhat relevant combined with a quality of
   performance rating of exceptional yielded a performance confidence rating
   of satisfactory/confidence, for the agency to have assigned its proposal a
   performance confidence rating of marginal/little confidence.

   As we noted in our decision on UPC's protest, as a general matter, the
   evaluation of an offeror's past performance is within the discretion of
   the contracting agency, and we will not substitute our judgment for
   reasonably based past performance ratings. United Paradyne Corp., supra,
   at 4. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not
   establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. Hard Bodies, Inc.,
   B-279543, June 23, 1998 98-1 CPD para.172 at 3.

   The Air Force responded to the protester's first argument by explaining
   that in assessing the relevance of previously performed contracts, the
   evaluators had considered the extent to which the contracts involved
   performance in each of five areas in which services were required under
   the instant RFP (i.e., distribution, bulk storage, cryogenics, fuels lab,
   and accounting). According to the agency, the protester and its
   subcontractor demonstrated little or no experience in several of these
   areas; accordingly, the agency argued, since the protester's past efforts
   involved only some of the magnitude of the effort and complexities
   required by the instant RFP, a rating of somewhat relevant was
   appropriate. In support of its position, the agency furnished a "relevancy
   chart" for the contracts submitted by JWK/Maytag, which showed that the
   evaluators had assigned all four of the JWK contracts and three of the
   five Maytag contracts point scores of 0 for relevance, and that they had
   assigned the remaining two Maytag contracts point scores of 6 and 4 (out
   of 10) for distribution, 3 for bulk storage (both contracts), 8 for
   cryogenics (both contracts), 1 and 0 for fuels lab, and 0 for accounting
   (both contracts).[3] The "relevancy chart" also showed that prior
   contracts had been evaluated in a final "roll-up" category based on the
   number of the above areas that they encompassed (i.e., a contract that
   involved work in all five areas was to be awarded a score of 10; a
   contract that involved work in four of the five, a score of 8; a contract
   that involved three of the five, a score of 6; etc.); both Maytag
   contracts received scores of 6 under this criterion.

   With regard to the protester's second argument, the agency explained that
   in its initial evaluation, it had given equal weight to relevance and
   quality of performance in determining performance confidence ratings,
   while in its reevaluation, it had "assigned greater weight to more
   relevant past performance by eliminating Non-Relevant contracts and
   considering only those contracts determined to be Somewhat Relevant,
   Relevant, or Highly Relevant." Memorandum of Law at 4. According to the
   agency, "[s]ince the `quality' and `relevancy' components were weighted
   differently in the original evaluation and the re-evaluation, it is only
   logical that the integrated past performance confidence ratings resulting
   from the two evaluations would differ." Id.

   In response to the agency's explanation, the protester took issue with the
   agency's rating of its past performance, arguing that it should have
   received a score of 8 rather than a score of 6 in the "roll-up" category
   for one of the Maytag contracts and that the agency had improperly failed
   to take into account the experience of its proposed key personnel. JWK
   further argued that in its reevaluation the agency had improperly reduced
   the significance of quality of performance and placed too much
   significance on relevance. According to the protester, since the RFP was
   silent as to the relative weights to be accorded these factors, they
   should have been treated as equal. The protester also argued that it was
   inconsistent with the terms of the RFP for the agency to have assigned its
   proposal a performance confidence rating of marginal/little confidence
   since this rating contemplated a finding by the agency that an offeror's
   performance was in need of improvement, and the agency made no such
   finding in its case.

   In response to the protester's argument regarding the scoring of one of
   the Maytag contracts in the "roll-up" category, the contracting officer
   conceded that an error had been made and that the score should have been 8
   rather than 6. The contracting officer maintained that the error had not
   resulted in any prejudice to JWK, however, because even with the
   additional points, the contract would still have been rated as somewhat
   relevant, a position that the protester does not dispute. Accordingly, we
   need not consider this argument further. See GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship,
   B-298102, B-298102.3, June 14, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 96 at 7-8 (prejudice
   is an essential element of every viable protest).

   Regarding JWK's argument that the experience of its proposed key personnel
   should have been considered in the evaluation of its past performance, we
   recognize that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) advises that
   "[t]he evaluation [of past performance] should take into account past
   performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who
   have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or
   critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to
   the instant acquisition." FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iii). We have previously
   interpreted this section as permitting an agency to decide that
   information concerning key personnel is not relevant, however. Olympus
   Bldg. Servs., Inc., B-282887, Aug. 31, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 49 at 3-4; see
   also Blue Rock Structures, Inc., B-287960.2, B-287960.3, Oct. 10, 2001,
   2001 CPD para. 184 at 5. Here, the contracting officer explains that the
   agency assessed the potential ability of offerors to perform under the
   mission capability evaluation factor and their actual experience in
   performing the type of work required under the past performance factor. In
   the contracting officer's view, the individual skills and qualifications
   of personnel do not provide information as to how the company or its
   subcontractors have performed the requirements of the performance work
   statement on other contracts, nor do they give any indication as to the
   offeror's quality of performance on contracts similar in scope and
   complexity to the effort here. Addendum to Contracting Officer's Statement
   of Facts, July 12, 2006, at 1. We think that this explanation provides a
   reasonable basis for the agency's decision not to consider the experience
   of proposed key personnel in evaluating JWK's past performance.
   Accordingly, we conclude that the agency reasonably exercised its
   discretion in deciding not to consider the qualifications and experience
   of proposed key personnel in its evaluation of JWK's past performance.

   The protester also argues that because the RFP was silent as to the
   weights to be assigned relevance and quality of performance, these two
   subfactors should have been treated as equal in the evaluation of past
   performance. The cases cited by the protester in support of its argument,
   Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., B-255286.2, Apr. 12, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 306
   and Informatics, Inc., B-194734, Aug. 22, 1979, 79-2 CPD para. 144, are
   distinguishable from the case at hand in that they involved solicitations
   that identified separate subfactors to be considered in the evaluation
   under a factor, which the RFP here did not do. In this connection, while
   the solicitation here clearly contemplated consideration of relevance and
   quality of performance as part of an integrated assessment of past
   performance, it did not establish relevance and quality of performance as
   separate subfactors. In any event, we do not think that the record before
   us demonstrates that the agency in fact gave greater weight to relevance
   than to quality of performance in the evaluation of past performance;
   rather, the record demonstrates that the agency considered the relevance
   of the protester's prior performance in determining the weight to give
   that performance, and that, in the protester's case, because the relevance
   of the performance was low, the weight given to the quality of that
   performance was low.

   In support of its argument that the solicitation contemplated the
   assignment of a performance confidence rating of marginal/little
   confidence only where the agency found an offeror's prior performance to
   be in need of improvement, the protester cites the second sentence of the
   RFP definition of that rating: "Changes to the offeror's existing
   processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements."[4]
   The protester contends that this language indicates that an offeror's
   ability to perform will be questioned only to the extent that the agency
   has identified changes that the offeror will need to make to perform
   successfully. We disagree. The sentence in question provides that changes
   to the offeror's existing processes may be required, not that they
   necessarily will be required. Thus, we think that it was consistent with
   the solicitation for the agency to conclude that, based on the protester's
   lack of more than minimally relevant experience, there existed substantial
   doubt as to its ability to perform successfully.

   Finally, with regard to the protester's complaint that under the first
   evaluation, exceptional performance on somewhat relevant contracts yielded
   a performance confidence rating of satisfactory/confidence, whereas under
   the reevaluation, exceptional performance on somewhat relevant contracts
   yielded a performance confidence rating of marginal/little confidence, the
   methodology used by the agency in its initial evaluation was flawed in
   that, among other things, it failed to take into account the relevance of
   a particular contractual effort in determining the weight to be assigned
   an offeror's performance of it; as a result, the fact that the second
   evaluation yielded a different result in no way indicates that the
   reevaluation was flawed.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] While JWK submitted information on four contracts that it had
   performed itself and five contracts that its proposed subcontractor,
   Maytag Aircraft Corporation, had performed, the Air Force determined that
   none of JWK's own contracts was even somewhat relevant since none of its
   contracts was a fuels management contract and only two of the Maytag
   contracts were somewhat relevant. FWSI submitted information on seven
   contracts; of the seven, four were determined to be not relevant, two were
   determined to be somewhat relevant, and one was determined to be highly
   relevant. Five of the remaining seven offerors were assigned relevance
   ratings of highly relevant and two were assigned ratings of somewhat
   relevant.

   [2] The other two offerors with relevance ratings of somewhat relevant and
   quality of performance ratings of exceptional also received performance
   confidence ratings of marginal/little confidence, whereas the five
   offerors with relevance ratings of highly relevant and quality of
   performance ratings of exceptional all received performance confidence
   ratings of exceptional/high confidence.

   [3] The "relevancy chart" contained very detailed guidelines for the
   assignment of points for relevance. In the area of "distribution," for
   example, the chart provided for the assignment of points as follows:

   All including mobile and hydrants and vehicle maintenance 10
   Mobile and Hydrants only 7
   Mobile with Vehicle Maintenance 6
   Mobile only 4
   Hydrants only 4
   Vehicle Maintenance only 2

   Agency Report, Tab 3(g).

   [4] As previously noted, the RFP defined a rating of marginal/little
   confidence as follows:

   Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial doubts exist that
   the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the
   offeror's existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract
   requirements.

   RFP at 45.