TITLE: B-298233.2; B-298233.3, Dellew Corporation, September 13, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298233.2; B-298233.3
DATE: September 13, 2006
**************************************************************
B-298233.2; B-298233.3, Dellew Corporation, September 13, 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: Dellew Corporation
File: B-298233.2; B-298233.3
Date: September 13, 2006
Timothy H. Power, Esq., Timothy H. Power Law Office, for the protester.
Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, PC, for Defense Contract
Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Maj. John G. Terra, and Capt. David W. Armstrong, Department of the Air
Force, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance was unobjectionable
where record establishes that evaluation was reasonable and consistent
with stated evaluation factors.
DECISION
Dellew Corporation protests the award of a contract to Defense Contract
Services, Inc. (DCSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
FA4417-06-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, 16^th
Contracting Squadron, for logistics readiness functions at Hurlburt Field,
Florida. Dellew challenges the evaluation of past performance and the
award to DCSI.
We deny the protest.
The solicitation, issued as a small business set-aside on November 15,
2005, provided for award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with
four 1-year options, for a broad array of logistics readiness functions.
The RFP provided a detailed statement of work (SOW) describing the
required services, which included all of the functions of the procedures
and analysis, document control, inventory, hazardous materials, and
delivery sections of the 16^th Logistics Readiness Squadron (LRS).
Specific tasks of each of these LRS sections--including, for example,
obtaining and analyzing statistical data to determine the effectiveness of
unit operations and processes, performing semi-annual analyses of customer
complaints or problems, establishing and maintaining inventory schedules,
conducting inventories of assets, researching inventory discrepancies,
managing the receipt, storage, issue, inspection, and distribution of
hazardous materials, maintaining the existence of a low-level radioactive
storage facility, coordinating the disposition of radioactive material,
and delivering all supplies and equipment to on-base activities--were
listed in the solicitation.
Award was to be made based on initial proposals, without discussions, to
the firm whose offer was evaluated as the "best value" to the government,
considering technical factors--mission capability (with two
subfactors--quality control plan and transition plan) and past
performance--and price. RFP amend. 1, at 5. The mission capability and
past performance factors, combined, were equal in importance to price. Id.
The evaluation under the mission capability factor (representing the
evaluators' views as to the offeror's ability to meet performance or
capability requirements) was expressed with color/adjectival
ratings--blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, and
red/unacceptable. The past performance evaluation was expressed in terms
of high confidence, significant confidence, satisfactory confidence,
unknown confidence, little confidence, and no confidence, representing the
evaluators' assessment of an offeror's probability of successfully
accomplishing the requirements. Id. at 6-7.
Regarding past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to "identify past
or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and
commercial) for efforts similar in size, scope, type, and complexity to
the requirements stated in this RFP." RFP amend. 1, at 4. Offerors were to
provide references for all recent and relevant work (up to 10 projects)
performed in the last 3 years. References were to rate the contractor's
performance as exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or
unsatisfactory in response to seven performance questions, including, for
example, how well the vendor met required delivery/performance times, the
contractor's standard of workmanship, and its ability to identify and
solve problems as they occurred. Id. at 8, 10-11. Each reference also was
to indicate, on a scale of 1 ("definitely yes") to 5 ("definitely no"),
whether he or she would award a contract to the contractor today.
The agency received 11 proposals, including Dellew's and DCSI's, by the
January 19, 2006 due date. Dellew's proposal identified four contracts for
past performance evaluation purposes: one subcontract for automated base
supply and logistics support services at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and
three prime contracts to (1) manage the Training Support Center, including
the inventory of training equipment at Schofield Barracks; (2) operate two
self-help stores for household and lawn maintenance items at Fort Shafter
and Schofield Barracks, and (3) receive, process and distribute mail at
Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Dellew Proposal,
Past Performance, at 1-10. The agency received four performance surveys
(including two from different references regarding the Schofield Barracks
contract). The four references rated Dellew's performance exceptional for
20 of the 28 performance questions; Dellew's reference for management of
the Schofield Barracks Training Support Center rated Dellew's performance
very good under 2 questions regarding Dellew's standard of workmanship and
its ability to provide experienced installers with the required technical
capabilities. AR, Tab 11, subtab C, at 1-13. Two references did not
respond to a total of six of the questions, noting that the terms in the
questions were unfamiliar or the questions were not applicable. Id. Three
of the references selected "1" to indicate that they would "definitely"
award a contract to Dellew today; the fourth reference, who was the
reference for Dellew's base supply and logistics support services
subcontract, wrote in "1.5," indicating that it was more likely than
"maybe" but less likely than "definitely" that he would award a contract
to Dellew. Id. at 2, 5, 8, 13.
DCSI's proposal identified three contracts: one prime contract for
warehouse services involving the receipt, storage, duplication, packaging,
shipping, and inventory management of electronic education/recruitment
materials at Maxwell Air Force Base, and two subcontracts, for (1) base
supply services (including material management, systems and materials
storage and distribution, missile maintenance material control, hazardous
materials management, and fuels management) at Malmstrom Air Force Base,
and (2) for the procedures and analysis portion of the Elmendorf Air Force
Base supply contract. AR, Tab 7, DCSI Proposal, vol. 2, at 2-9. The agency
received three performance surveys for DCSI, with "exceptional" ratings
under all 21 performance questions. All three references selected "1" to
indicate that they would "definitely" award a contract to DCSI today. AR,
Tab 13, subtab C, at 1-8.
The agency's technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the proposals, and
award was made to DCSI (without discussions) on March 31. This award was
challenged in a protest filed in our Office by another offeror. In
response, the agency took corrective action, proposing to establish a new
evaluation team and reevaluating the proposals; we therefore dismissed the
protest as academic. (B-298233, May 11, 2006). The new TEP evaluated both
Dellew's and DCSI's proposals as green/acceptable under mission
capability, but assigned Dellew a satisfactory confidence rating for past
performance while assigning DCSI a significant confidence rating. AR, Tab
16, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 2. Dellew's proposed
price was $2,206,484.64, and DCSI's $2,231,220.00. Id. The contracting
officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA), reviewed the
evaluation results and determined that DCSI's proposal offered the best
value to the government, specifically noting that Dellew's only past
performance related to LRS work was its current subcontract at Schofield
Barracks, and concluding that Dellew "did not show very much background in
[its] past performance for working LRS-type contracts." AR, Tab 8,
Post-Award Debriefing, at 2; AR, Tab 16, SSDD, at 3. DLA made award to
DCSI on June 12.
Dellew contends that the agency improperly employed an unstated evaluation
criterion in its past performance evaluation, asserting that there was no
requirement in the RFP that past performance include LRS-type contracts.
This argument is without merit. As noted above, the solicitation
identified the work as LRS functions, listed five specific LRS functions
and specific tasks under each LRS function, and requested that offerors
submit relevant past performance information regarding efforts "similar in
size, scope, type and complexity" to the requirements here. RFP, amend. 1,
at 4. The solicitation thus clearly contemplated that, in evaluating
proposals under past performance, the agency would consider whether an
offeror had experience providing the five types of LRS services outlined
in the solicitation.
Dellew argues that it should have received a significant confidence rating
under the past performance factor; in light of its low price, this would
have moved it into line for award. Specifically, Dellew notes that both
firms performed base supply subcontracts and contracts to provide services
that are part of base supply, and asserts that the reference ratings for
its and DCSI's prior contracts are essentially equal. Dellew argues that
its receipt of two "very good" reference ratings rather than uniformly
"excellent" ratings is a "slight difference" that "cannot justify rating
Dellew below DCSI." Protester's Comments at 4.
In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of offers, we
will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding the
merits of the offers; rather, we will examine the evaluation record to
ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's
evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Coastal
Drilling, Inc., B-285085.3, July 20, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 130 at 4. A
protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation does not render
it unreasonable. CORVAC, Inc., B-244766, Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 454
at 5.
The past performance evaluation was unobjectionable. Although the SSA
commented on Dellew's relatively limited past performance, the record
shows that the selection ultimately turned on Dellew's and DCSI's
reference ratings. In this regard, while both firms received exemplary
ratings, and Dellew emphasizes the similarity in the ratings, the fact is
that the ratings were not the same--DCSI's ratings were uniformly
"excellent," while Dellew received two "very good" ratings in addition to
its "excellent" ratings. As discussed above, one of Dellew's references
also did not unequivocally state that he "definitely" would award a
contract to Dellew again--instead of selecting "1" to indicate that he
"definitely" would award a contract to Dellew today, he wrote in "1.5,"
indicating that he was less than certain that he would make a new award to
Dellew. While these appear to be relatively minor distinctions, there is
no basis to conclude that the agency was not permitted to give weight to
them in its price/technical tradeoff. As noted above, Dellew's price
advantage over DCSI was relatively minor--$24,736--and we think the agency
reasonably could determine that DCSI's edge under the past performance
factor was sufficient to offset Dellew's price advantage.
Dellew argues that the SSA misread the past performance evaluation
results. Specifically, Dellew points to the TEP's summary of Dellew's past
performance, which stated, "1 contract not LRS type award." AR, Tab 11,
Dellew Past Performance Evaluations, subtab B, at 1. Dellew interprets
this notation to mean that the TEP determined that three of its four
listed contracts were LRS-related, and that only one was not. Protester's
Comments at 2-3. Dellew then points to language in the SSA's Briefing to
the Evaluation Team, which reads: "Past performance shows 1 contract,
however, it is not an LRS type contract." AR, Tab 9, Source Selection
Authority Briefing, at 13. Dellew concludes that the SSA based her award
decision on incorrect information.
While the language in the agency's various evaluation documents is
confusing, the record shows that the SSA was fully aware that Dellew had
performed more than one contract, and that she determined that three of
Dellew's contracts did not involve the complexity, scope, or type of LRS
work required under the RFP. Specifically, as noted above, the SSDD and
Post-Award Debriefing set forth the SSA's determination that Dellew did
not "have much experience" with LRS contracts, and had broad LRS
experience under only one contract. Dellew does not actually claim that
three of its listed contracts were LRS contracts; rather, it merely
focuses on the apparent misstatement in the TEP's summary. This is not
sufficient to establish that the evaluation was unreasonable given our
finding that the SSA's ultimate conclusions in fact are supported by the
record. To the extent Dellew believes the agency should have found that
three of its contracts were LRS contracts covering the work under the RFP,
it has neither identified which of its four contracts it believes are of
this type, nor shown where in its proposal it described the work under
those contracts as broad LRS work. This argument therefore provides no
basis for questioning the evaluation.
Dellew argues that the evaluation documentation in the record is
inadequate because the agency failed to provide individual evaluator score
sheets. In response, the agency explains that, while the evaluators met,
reviewed the offerors' past performance documents, and reached a consensus
rating for each offeror, individual evaluation sheets were not required or
completed. The lack of individual evaluator documents does not render an
agency's evaluation unreasonable per se; rather, we will consider the
record adequate if the consensus documents and source selection decision
sufficiently document the agency's rationale for the evaluation. Joint
Mgmt. and Tech. Servs., B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD
para. 208 at 3-4; Global Eng'g and Constr., LLC, B-290288.3, B-290288.4,
Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 180 at 3 n.3. The evaluation documentation
here is sufficient because it includes TEP consensus documents and the
SSDD, which adequately detail the strengths and weaknesses that formed the
basis for the agency's evaluation ratings for each offeror and the
selection decision.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel