Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Air Force
Disposition: Protest denied.
Past performance provision in solicitation that limits past performance references to those performed within the past 3 years is consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.305(a)(2)(i), which requires that the currency of past performance be evaluated, and is not unduly restrictive of competition, particularly given the requirement in FAR § 15.305(a)(2)(iv) that offerors with no current or relevant past performance may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
Futurecom argues that the requirement to submit past performance information limited to the past three years is unduly restrictive because it would be very difficult for any offeror other than Vital Link to provide relevant past performance information for the past three years in that Vital Link has been the only contractor providing these services to the Air Force in recent years. Futurecom asks that the agency eliminate the three-year recency requirement regarding the past performance information to be submitted by the offerors. GAO states that Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.305(a)(2)(i), which is applicable to this procurement, provides that [the] currency and relevance of the information regarding past performance shall be considered in the past performance evaluation.
Consistent with this FAR section, the Air Force explains that the solicitation language requesting past performance information from the contractors is standard language based on the Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide (PPEG) IG5315.305(a)(2)(at 7) that provides that three years is the standard time period to define currency of past performance to be considered in the evaluation of proposals. Moreover, consistent with FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iii), the RFP amendment provides that offerors, which do not have current and relevant past performance, can reference contracts/efforts demonstrating the present and past performance for each of their key personnel. Finally, the proposals of offerors, who have no current (within the past three years) or relevant past performance, as defined by the RFP, cannot be rejected as unacceptable because they lack current or relevant past performance, but may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be provided an –unknown confidence rating. Because the performance evaluation criteria included in the RFP amendment are consistent with applicable regulations and do not preclude Futurecom from submitting a proposal, GAO finds no basis to object to this amendment. The protest is denied.