TITLE: B-298076.2, Morgan-Keller, Inc., August 1, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298076.2
DATE: August 1, 2006
***********************************************
B-298076.2, Morgan-Keller, Inc., August 1, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Morgan-Keller, Inc.

   File: B-298076.2

   Date: August 1, 2006

   Michael M. Mock for the protester.

   Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Monica A. Ceruti, Esq., Department of the Air
   Force, 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

   Agency's evaluation of offerors' experience and past performance and the
   resulting award determination are unobjectionable where the evaluation and
   the award determination were reasonable and consistent with the
   solicitation's stated evaluation criteria.

   DECISION

   Morgan-Keller, Inc. (MKI) protests the award of a contract to Nelson
   Refrigeration, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   FA3002-05-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the
   construction of a new commissary facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland for
   the Defense Commissary Agency. The protester maintains that the agency
   improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal and, thus, made a flawed
   source selection decision.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract on the basis of
   the proposal which offered the best value to the government. Under the
   RFP, the past performance evaluation factor was considered significantly
   more important than price. The past performance evaluation factor
   consisted of the following five subfactors listed in order of importance:
   quality control, timely performance, management effectiveness, compliance
   with labor standards, and compliance with safety standards. The RFP
   provided that the agency would evaluate an offeror's present/past
   performance using descriptive adjectives (satisfactory, good, very good,
   and exceptional) that most accurately defined the offeror's performance
   for each identified subfactor. The RFP also stated that the evaluation
   would look at the extent of successfully completed commissary and/or
   commercial supermarket construction experience.

   The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals.
   Offerors were required to forward a copy of a questionnaire contained in
   the RFP to a minimum of three, but not more than five, references for whom
   the offeror performed "similar" construction/services within the past 3
   years. The RFP provided that more relevant projects would receive greater
   consideration during the evaluation. The RFP further provided that
   relevance would be based on the similarity, complexity, and size of the
   projects being evaluated and stated that the most relevant performance
   would consist of experience in the construction of new commissaries or
   commercial grocery stores which included extensive product refrigeration
   equipment. Projects for construction, expansion, and renovation of
   government facilities and commercial retail or office space would be
   considered relevant, especially when the contractor had implemented plans
   to minimize disruption of daily business operations. Other types of
   construction projects would be evaluated as only slightly relevant.

   The agency received seven proposals, including proposals from MKI and
   Nelson. MKI submitted the lowest price, but was not as highly rated as
   Nelson under the past performance evaluation factor. Award was made to
   Nelson on August 15, 2005. After a protest was filed with our Office by
   another offeror, the agency decided to terminate the original award and to
   hold discussions with all offerors. After receipt and evaluation of
   revised proposals, award was made again to Nelson on February 21, 2006.
   MKI and another offeror then filed protests with our Office. The agency
   subsequently decided to take corrective action based on the appearance of
   a potential conflict of interest. The agency then selected a new
   evaluation team and source selection authority (SSA) and reevaluated the
   previously submitted proposals. The SSA's tradeoff decision focused
   primarily on the proposals of Nelson and another offeror. On April 24, the
   agency again awarded a contract to Nelson. The SSA specifically concluded
   that Nelson's exceptional past performance justified the payment of a
   price premium to Nelson compared to firms with lower rated, lower priced
   proposals. Following a debriefing, MKI filed this protest with our Office.

   MKI, which received a satisfactory rating for past performance and
   proposed a lower price than Nelson, challenges the exceptional past
   performance rating assigned to Nelson's proposal, asserting that Nelson
   lacks experience as a general contractor. MKI also argues that its low
   priced proposal should have received greater consideration in determining
   which proposal represented the best value to the government.[1]

   In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is
   confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and
   consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
   regulations, as it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. The
   protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not
   establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. Hanford Envtl. Health
   Found., B-292858.2, B-292858.5, Apr. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 164 at 4.

   The agency maintains, and the record confirms, that Nelson was selected
   based on a detailed best-value analysis in accordance with the
   solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. The record shows that Nelson
   has 5 years of experience as a general contractor and has refrigeration
   expertise. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 5 and Nelson's Proposal
   Attachment 6. Based on three relevant project surveys, all involving
   commissary work, Nelson demonstrated extensive refrigeration equipment
   experience and experience at commissaries. Source Selection Decision at
   42. Nelson was rated exceptional overall for past performance based on the
   fact that it received two exceptional ratings and one very good rating on
   the three most recent and relevant commissary renovation projects that
   involved extensive refrigeration equipment and planning. On all three
   projects, Nelson was praised for its timely performance and quality
   control. In fact, the record shows that two of the projects were finished
   90 days and 60 days ahead of schedule. Based on the record, we think
   Nelson's exceptional past performance rating was reasonable.

   MKI provided three references involving new construction and renovation of
   a large hospital, renovation of a commercial grocery store, and
   construction of a correctional institution. The record shows that two of
   the references rated MKI as satisfactory because of project management and
   schedule concerns. The reference for a third project, while rating MKI
   very good, nevertheless expressed concerns about MKI's performance on the
   project. For example, the reference noted delays in resolving warranty
   issues. The record shows that the protester had some performance issues
   involving the three most important evaluation subfactors, specifically,
   timely performance, management effectiveness, and quality control. Id. at
   8. For past performance, the agency rated the protester as satisfactory
   overall because the agency had some doubt that MKI could successfully
   perform the requirement. Id. at 37.[2] The agency's rating of satisfactory
   for MKI under the past performance evaluation factor is supported by the
   evaluation of MKI's proposal and references.

   The protester also argues that its low priced proposal should have been
   given more consideration in the source selection decision. In best value
   procurements, price is not necessarily controlling; rather, the best-value
   determination is made based upon the evaluation factors in the RFP. In
   this regard, price/performance tradeoffs are permitted when they are
   reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Nomura Enter., Inc.,
   B-277768, Nov. 19, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 148 at 4.

   Here, the RFP specifically provided that past performance was
   significantly more important than price. While the protester submitted the
   lowest priced proposal, as discussed above, the protester reasonably
   received a satisfactory rating for past performance and did not
   demonstrate significant commissary or grocery store construction
   experience. In contrast, Nelson was evaluated as exceptional under the
   past performance evaluation factor and demonstrated relevant commissary
   construction experience. Under these circumstances, consistent with the
   best-value award criteria that emphasized the past performance factor as
   significantly more important than the price factor, the agency reasonably
   concluded that Nelson's higher rated, higher priced proposal, as compared
   to MKI's lower rated, lower priced proposal, offered the best value to the
   government.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] In its protest, MKI also argued that the solicitation and evaluation
   improperly placed heavy emphasis on past experience in product
   refrigeration and commissary/grocery store construction. Here, the terms
   of the RFP specifically stated that the most relevant past performance
   involved construction of new commissaries or commercial grocery stores
   which include extensive product refrigeration equipment. A protest based
   upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to
   the time set for receipt of proposals must be filed prior to the initial
   closing time set for receipt of proposals. Bid Protest Regulations, 4
   C.F.R.sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2006). MKI's protest of the terms of the RFP is
   untimely and will not be considered.

   [2] The protester also argues that the agency failed to recognize that
   significant commercial-grade refrigeration work was involved in its
   correctional institution project. The agency reports that the extent of
   the refrigeration work was not apparent from the protester's proposal. CO
   Statement at 7. In any event, we agree with the agency that the protester
   was not prejudiced by any oversight in this regard since the protester's
   performance on this project reflected a low level of satisfaction on the
   part of the customer.