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