Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Army
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Past Performance Evaluation
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: GAO will not reevaluate proposals in deciding a bid protest, but it will examine both the proposal and the evaluation documents to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations.
The Department of the Army (Army) issued a request for proposals (RFP) for advisory, atmospheric, and analysis support services for U.S. forces in Iraq. The solicitation sought proposals for an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a six-month base period, with three six-month option periods. Award was to be made on a “best value” basis and technical proposals were to be evaluated on a “go/no-go” basis. Those with a “go” rating would be evaluated for past performance and price.
SOS International, Ltd. (SOS) received a “go” under the technical evaluation factor and a past performance rating of very low risk. However, SOS’s price was higher than the awardee’s. SOS asserts that the agency misevaluated the awardee’s proposal.
GAO states that it will not reevaluate proposals, but it will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations.
As for the Army’s consideration of the awardee’s past performance, the record shows that the Army received three past performance questionnaires (PPQs) in connection with the awardee’s proposal, but the Army only considered two. While the RFP permitted the Army to consider past performance information where such information was relevant, the RFP did not require it. Also, the Army did not unreasonably fail to account for the instances of no answer or “not applicable” on the awardee’s PPQs where the Army calculated the scores for all offerors in the same manner and SOS could not show how it was competitively prejudiced by the Army’s methodology. SOS’s assertion that the Army failed to consider negative information regarding the awardee’s past performance is also without merit where the RFP did not require the Army to consider the information that was not included in the PPQs. Therefore, the Army’s failure to discover or consider such information does not constitute an evaluation impropriety. The protest is denied.