• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Glenn Defense Marine-Asia PTE, Ltd., B-402687.6; B-402687.7, October 13, 2011

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • January 9, 2012
  • Past Performance

Link:         GAO Opinion

Agency:    Department of the Navy

Disposition:  Protest denied.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GAO Digest:

Protest challenging agency’s technical and past performance evaluation of proposals is denied where agency’s evaluation was reasonable and supported by the record.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: 

GDMA contends that the agency should have rated GDMA’s proposal superior to the awardee’s. For example, GDMA argues that certain strengths were improperly attributed to MLS’s proposal, while GDMA was not given strengths for similar responses or strengths that were otherwise warranted. GAO states that the evaluation of proposals, including the determination of the relative merits of proposals, is primarily a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. In reviewing an agency’s evaluation, GAO will not reevaluate the proposals or make a new source selection, but rather will examine the record of the evaluation and source selection to ensure that they were reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria as well as with procurement law and regulation. A protester’s mere disagreement with a procuring agency’s judgment is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.

The record shows that two strengths involving operational security were derived from information in the awardee’s technical proposal, rather than from an evaluation of the awardee’s security plan. These strengths were rolled up into a major strength in the Post Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum: “[s]trong OPSEC understanding and processes.” Based on GAO’s review, the assignment of this major strength to the awardee’s proposal was reasonable and consistent with the RFP’s evaluation scheme.

The key discriminator in the source selection decision was GDMA’s “less than satisfactory” past performance as compared to the awardee’s “better” past performance. The protester challenges the evaluation of GDMA’s and MLS’s past performance. GAO states that the evaluation of an offeror’s past performance, including the agency’s determination of the relevance and scope of an offeror’s performance history, is a matter of agency discretion, which GAO will not find improper unless it is inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. The evaluation of experience and past performance, by its very nature, is subjective; GAO will not substitute its judgment for reasonably based evaluation ratings, and an offeror’s mere disagreement with an agency’s evaluation judgments does not demonstrate that those judgments are unreasonable.

The protester notes that the GDMA’s past performance was initially found to be satisfactory, based upon a review of the questionnaires returned by each reference; but GDMA’s rating was later changed to “less than satisfactory” after the Initial Business Clearance Memorandum (reflecting the initial satisfactory rating) was presented to the Contract Review Board (CRB). The protester characterizes the CRB’s involvement as “an instruction from on high,” and suggests that the past performance evaluation team (PPET) may have updated its overall rating under pressure and without a valid basis. The agency responds that the purpose of the CRB is to provide an independent review of the acquisition and to highlight areas that are inconsistent, or otherwise of concern. The CRB noted that several specific performance concerns had been expressed regarding the only contract that the evaluation committee viewed as highly relevant; much of the PPET’s evaluation turned on these concerns. The CRB member explained that the panel wanted to ensure that those concerns had been properly considered in the evaluation. Responding to the CRB’s guidance, the PPET again reviewed the past performance information, and determined that GDMA’s overall past performance rating should be “less than satisfactory.” This report detailed the reasons why this rating was warranted. Thus, there is no evidence that the CRB directed the PPET to a particular outcome; rather it asked the PPET to ensure that its satisfactory rating was supported by the underlying past performance information.

This type of review by higher-level agency officials is entirely appropriate, states GAO. Source selection officials and higher-level agency evaluators may reasonably disagree with the evaluation ratings and results of lower-level evaluators. In this regard, a source selection official has broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which technical and cost evaluation results are used, is permitted to make an independent evaluation of offerors’ proposals, and may disagree with or expand upon the findings of lower-level evaluators provided the basis for the evaluation is reasonable and documented in the contemporaneous record. The issue is not whether the agency’s final assessments are consistent with earlier assessments, but whether they reasonably reflect the relative merits of the proposals, consistent with the solicitation.

While GDMA contends that it’s past performance rating should have been better than the “Less than Satisfactory” rating it ultimately received, GAO notes that GDMA does not disagree with many of the negative remarks regarding its past performance. Rather, GDMA primarily disagrees with the weight those negative remarks were given by the PPET. However, GDMA’s disagreement with the weight accorded to its past performance problems does not mean that they were improperly evaluated. Absent a showing of why the conclusions were unreasonable, GAO has no basis to conclude that the agency evaluated GDMA’s past performance in a manner inconsistent with the RFP’s evaluation scheme.

The protest is denied.

Share

Related Posts

Silverback7, Inc., B-408053.2; B-408053.3, August 26, 2013

October 9, 2013

Kollsman Inc., B-406990.4; B-406990.5, February 19, 2013

August 16, 2013

B&B Medical Services, Inc., B-407113.3; B-407113.4, June 24, 2013

August 16, 2013

DaeKee Global Co. Ltd., B-402687.8, January 3, 2012

August 16, 2013

Comments are closed

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411