TITLE: B-310136, Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc., November 26, 2007
BNUMBER: B-310136
DATE: November 26, 2007
**********************************************************************
B-310136, Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc., November 26, 2007

   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: Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc.

   File: B-310136

   Date: November 26, 2007

   John Lukjanowicz, Esq., for the protester.

   Heather M. Self, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Evaluation of awardee's past performance was reasonable, notwithstanding
   protester's identification of alleged negative information concerning
   awardee, where agency did not have personal knowledge of some of the
   information, and fully considered information of which it was aware.

   DECISION

   Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc. protests the award of a contract
   to Ferguson Management Company South under request for proposals (RFP)
   No. AG024B-S-07-0009, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S.
   Forest Service, for wildland fire-fighting crews. Firestorm challenges the
   technical capability and past performance evaluations.^[1]

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, a small business set-aside, sought proposals for the services of
   20-person fire-fighting crews at sites within specified distances of 6
   national forests (10 contract line items (CLIN)). Proposals were to be
   evaluated on the basis of four factors--past performance, technical
   capabilities, training/safety, and price. Past performance was to be
   evaluated on the basis of quality of services, customer satisfaction,
   timeliness of performance, trends in performance, and business
   relationships. Under this factor, the evaluators could consider proposal
   information, various past performance databases, and their own personal
   experience and knowledge. The non-price factors were of approximately
   equal weight and, combined, were more important than price. Award was to
   be made to multiple offerors on a "best value" basis.

   This protest concerns the award of CLIN 19b, for services within 100 miles
   of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Eight firms, including Firestorm
   and Ferguson, submitted proposals for CLIN 19b. After an initial review,
   both firms' proposals (the only ones relevant here) were included in the
   competitive range. Following discussions and submission of final proposal
   revisions, the technical evaluation board's (TEB) final consensus
   evaluation ratings for the two proposals were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                               |      Ferguson       |    Firestorm     |
   |-------------------------------+---------------------+------------------|
   |Past Performance               |     Acceptable      |    Acceptable    |
   |-------------------------------+---------------------+------------------|
   |Technical Capability           |     Exceptional     |    Acceptable    |
   |-------------------------------+---------------------+------------------|
   |Training/Safety                |     Acceptable      |    Acceptable    |
   |-------------------------------+---------------------+------------------|
   |            Overall            |     Acceptable      |    Acceptable    |
   |-------------------------------+---------------------+------------------|
   |             Price             |      $943,500       |     $975,420     |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   The TEB recommended award to Firestorm, but the contracting officer
   determined that such an award was not justifiable in light of Firestorm's
   higher price, and thus recommended award to Ferguson.^[2] The source
   selection authority (SSA) adopted the contracting officer's recommendation
   and made award to Ferguson. Following a debriefing, Firestorm filed this
   protest. ^[3]

   PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

   Ferguson's Proposal

   Firestorm asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Ferguson's past
   performance as acceptable, even though the firm had experienced several
   noncompliance issues under prior contracts, and one of its fire crews had
   deployed fire shelters during the 2004 Tool Box fire, which the protester
   claims is an "extraordinary event." Noting that its own proposal reflected
   no noncompliance issues, Firestorm asserts that its rating should have
   been higher than Ferguson's.

   The evaluation of proposals, including 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. United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 75 at 10-11; Sterling Servs., Inc., B-286326, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000
   CPD para. 208 at 2-3.

   The past performance evaluation was unobjectionable. As instructed by RFP
   sect. L.6(b), Ferguson's proposal listed all of the fire suppression
   incidents on which it had fire crews from 2002 through 2005; included
   copies of its evaluations; and listed noncompliance actions taken against
   the firm, along with explanations of how the actions were resolved and how
   it planned to mitigate them going forward. ^[4] As part of its proposal,
   Ferguson identified three noncompliance issues from fires in 2002 and
   2003. These included [deleted]. Ferguson Proposal, AR at 00529-530.
   Ferguson described its corrective actions, including its [deleted]  to
   correct the problem. Id. The record shows that the TEB considered the
   noncompliance issues and corrective action--in addition to the positive
   information in Ferguson's proposal (including a letter of
   recommendation^[5])--and determined that Ferguson's past performance
   warranted an acceptable rating. Specifically, the TEB was satisfied that
   the firm had taken immediate action to correct the identified problems,
   which it believed showed that the firm would be proactive in working with
   the government to correct any problems that might arise. Initial Statement
   of TEB Chair para. 5. The TEB also considered the fact that the incidents
   were 4 to 5 years old and that, to its knowledge, problems had not
   recurred. Id. Under these circumstances, and consistent with the RFP
   evaluation criteria, the TEB could reasonably conclude that Ferguson's
   past performance was acceptable. ^[6]

   Ferguson's proposal also identified its participation in fighting the Tool
   Box fire, and included a crew performance rating sheet stating that that
   the firm did an excellent job while paying close attention to safety
   issues. Ferguson Proposal, AR at 00755. The evaluators' past performance
   rating included consideration of the firm's overall satisfactory
   performance in fighting the Tool Box fire, as reflected in the rating
   sheet, including the comment. The TEB did not consider the fact that fire
   shelters had been deployed because this was not mentioned in the rating
   sheet.

   The protester asserts that there is "something wrong" with a performance
   evaluation that does not mention such an "extraordinary event" as
   deployment of fire shelters, and that the agency should have delved
   further into the matter. Firestorm's Initial Comments at 9. In this
   regard, we have held that, in certain circumstances, evaluators cannot
   ignore information of which they are personally aware, even if that
   information is not included in the offeror's proposal. See GTS Duratek,
   Inc., B-280511.2, B-280511.3, Oct. 19, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 130 at 14;
   International Bus. Sys., Inc., B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 114
   at 5. This "too close at hand" principle does not apply here. While a "72
   Hour Report from the Serious Accident Investigation Team" for this fire
   was prepared by the Bureau of Land Management and sent to the supervisor
   of the Fremont National Forest, there is no evidence that any of the TEB
   members or procurement officials involved with this RFP had any knowledge
   of the report or the deployment of fire shelters.^[7] Contracting
   Officer's Statement para. 19. Thus, the evaluators' failure to consider
   the information presented by the protester does not provide a basis for
   questioning the evaluation.

   We reach the same conclusion as to an alleged fourth noncompliance
   incident in connection with the 2003 Cramer fire. In conjunction with an
   unrelated bid protest, a Ferguson competitor made negative allegations
   based on a Forest Service accident investigation report. Ferguson's
   proposal cover letter, without identifying the specific allegations,
   disputed their accuracy, characterized them as libelous, and noted that
   all were proven false. Ferguson Proposal, AR at 00527. The accident
   report, which was prepared because there were two fatalities--which were
   not attributed to any improper actions by Ferguson--included references to
   [deleted]. While the protester asserts that the TEB should have considered
   this "negative" information, there is no evidence that the TEB was aware
   of it. Neither incident was mentioned in the Cramer fire performance
   review (included in Ferguson's proposal), which remarked that Ferguson had
   a "good crew," rated the firm excellent for off-line conduct and use of
   safe practices, and rated it satisfactory for physical condition, hot line
   construction, mop-up, crew organization, and all supervisory positions.
   Ferguson Proposal, AR at 00712. As with the Tool Box fire information, the
   record does not establish that the evaluators had personal knowledge of
   the Cramer fire information, such that it could be considered "too close
   at hand" for the evaluators to ignore.^[8] Thus, the evaluators' failure
   to consider the information does not provide a basis for questioning the
   evaluation.

   Firestorm's Proposal

   Firestorm asserts that its past performance should have been rated higher
   because it included more letters of recommendation (seven) than Ferguson's
   (one). This argument is without merit. The agency notes that a least three
   of Firestorm's "letters of recommendation" were actually e-mailed
   performance evaluations that were included among the firm's other
   performance evaluations, and that one was actually a certificate of merit
   similar to a certificate referenced in Ferguson's proposal. TEB Statement
   paras. 6, 8. ^[9] While the RFP did not require letters of recommendation,
   the TEB viewed those submitted favorably in its evaluation, Supplemental
   Statement of TEB Chair para. 2, but they were taken into account with the
   entirety of the offerors' past performance information. TEB Statement
   para. 6. In this regard, the TEB considered both past performance
   proposals to be very equal overall; both firms had a long history and many
   good performance evaluations, and while both had experienced problems,
   Ferguson had resolved its problems without the need for government
   intervention, and Firestorm's were considered minor. TEB Statement
   para. 5. We conclude that Firestorm's submission of, in the final
   analysis, two more letters of recommendation than Ferguson does not
   provide a basis to question the TEB's evaluation of both proposals as
   acceptable.

   TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION

   Firestorm asserts that it was unreasonable for the TEB to evaluate
   Ferguson's proposal as exceptional under the technical capability factor
   because the TEB only found the firm's quality control plan to be
   acceptable. In the protester's view, to warrant an exceptional rating, a
   proposal would have to be evaluated as exceptional under all technical
   capability subfactors and the evaluation record is insufficient to support
   this rating.

   We will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a
   reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions.
   McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see
   Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
   Firestorm was not prejudiced by any error in the technical capability
   evaluation. In this regard, had the agency rated Ferguson's proposal
   acceptable rather than exceptional under this evaluation factor, its
   overall evaluation rating of acceptable would be unchanged. Since both
   offerors' proposals' overall rating remains acceptable, and Ferguson's
   proposal was lower-priced, this change in the evaluation would have no
   impact on the source selection. Accordingly, the argument is academic and
   we will not consider it. Dyna-Air Eng'g Corp., B-278037, Nov. 7, 1997,
   97-2 CPD para. 132.

   SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

   Firestorm asserts that the source selection decision is not supported by
   adequate documentation because there is no statement from the SSA
   explaining why he awarded the contract to Ferguson instead of Firestorm.
   An agency's source selection must be documented in sufficient detail to
   allow review of the merits of a protest. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 
   B-297374, B-297374.2, Jan. 12, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 32 at 10.

   Firestorm's challenge is based primarily on its view that the evaluation
   of Ferguson's proposal under the past performance and technical capability
   factors was flawed. However, as discussed above, Firestorm's assertions
   regarding the past performance evaluation have no merit and the protester
   was not prejudiced by any error in the technical capability evaluation. As
   a result, the record shows that both proposals were reasonably evaluated
   as acceptable overall under the non-price factors with Ferguson proposing
   a lower price than Firestorm. As documented in the best value analysis,
   and further explained in the contracting officer's supplemental statement,
   she recommended award to Ferguson based on its lower price and the SSA
   adopted that recommendation in making his source selection. AR at 00809,
   00816; Supplemental Contracting Officer's Statement para. 3. Where, as
   here, selection officials reasonably regard proposals as being essentially
   equal technically, price properly may become the determining factor in
   making award, notwithstanding that the solicitation assigned price less
   importance than technical factors. M-Cubed Info. Sys., Inc., B-284445,
   B-284445.2, Apr. 19, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 74 at 8. In short, the record is
   sufficient to support the source selection.^[10]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Firestorm initially challenged an award to Mountaineers Fire Crew, LLC
   but, after reviewing the agency report (AR), Firestorm withdrew that basis
   of protest.

   [2] Two other offerors had higher rated proposals than Ferguson's, one of
   which was lower priced, but these were recommended for award of other
   CLINs.

   [3] Firestorm challenges the agency's award on numerous bases. We have
   considered them all and find that they have no merit or did not prejudice
   the protester. This decision addresses Firestorm's most significant
   arguments.

   [4] While our decision refers to various aspects of Ferguson's past
   performance, in fact, as permitted under RFP sect. M.5.1(1), the awardee
   relied on the past performance of its predecessor firm, Ferguson
   Management Company.

   [5] Firestorm asserts that this letter of recommendation should not have
   been considered in the evaluation because it did not concern performance
   of responsibilities associated with fire suppression. The agency explains
   that the letter was considered relevant because its author recognized the
   crew's ability to adapt and perform well in an emergency situation, and
   thus reflected on the crew's character and the firm's ability to work with
   the government. TEB Statement para. 7. As noted above, past performance
   encompassed quality of services, customer satisfaction, timeliness of
   performance, trends in performance, and business relationships. RFP
   sect. M.5.1(1). The agency's consideration of the letter clearly fell
   within these elements, and therefore was unobjectionable.

   [6] We note that, while Firestorm's proposal stated that no noncompliance
   actions had been taken against it, the firm acknowledged that it had
   terminated several of its employees who were not adhering to its company
   policies. Their termination reduced the size of the crew below the
   required level and resulted in the voluntary removal of the crew from a
   fire with the approval of the operations section chief. Firestorm
   Proposal, AR at 00220.

   [7] In any event, there is no reason to believe that the TEB would have
   considered the deployment to represent negative past performance. In this
   regard, the report did not conclude that the shelter deployment was
   "extraordinary," or that it resulted from anything the crew had done
   improperly. In fact, it stated that the crew was well-organized, equipped
   with appropriate protective equipment and clothing, and that the safety
   zone was adequate to prevent serious injuries. AR, Tab 22.

   [8] In any event, again, there is no reason to conclude that the TEB would
   have found this information to have resulted in an unacceptable rating. In
   this regard, the agency notes that, since it is the incident commander's
   responsibility for [deleted], the crew's performance should not have been
   criticized based on [deleted], and that [deleted], the Ferguson crews were
   doing their required jobs and no further problems were mentioned in the
   report. Supplemental Contracting Officer's Statement para. 4.

   [9] Firestorm also challenges any positive consideration of Ferguson's
   certificate of merit because the certificate itself was not included in
   Ferguson's proposal, and Ferguson had incorrectly stated that it was one
   of only three contractors to receive one. This argument does not provide a
   basis for questioning the evaluation. According to the agency, 6 of 12
   contractors, including Firestorm and Ferguson, received the certificates,
   but since they were cumulative performance evaluations, and not awards,
   they were not given any special weight in either firm's past performance
   evaluation. TEB Statement para. 8.

   [10] Our conclusion is not changed by Firestorm's reliance on the fact
   that the TEB had originally recommended its proposal for award. The SSA
   questioned that recommendation and had the contracting officer contact all
   members of the TEB to request additional, specific rationales to justify a
   Firestorm award. Supplemental Contracting Officer's Statement para. 3.
   When the TEB was unable to articulate any additional rationales for their
   recommendation, the SSA refused to follow the initial recommendation. Id.
   The SSA was correct in his analysis; in view of the offerors' technically
   equal evaluations and the absence of any information to establish
   Firestorm's technical superiority, an award to the protester at its higher
   price would have been improper.