Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Justice
Disposition: Protest denied.
Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated subcontractor’s past performance because reference listed in quotation did not complete past performance survey is denied where (1) there is no indication that the person who completed the survey (the prior contracting officer’s technical representative) was not cognizant of the subcontractor’s past performance and (2) the listed reference served as an evaluator for this procurement who did not question the reported weaknesses.
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
Zolon asserts that the evaluation is unreasonable because the person that completed the subcontractor’s survey was not the person that the subcontractor listed as a reference for the referenced contract. GAO’s review of the record shows that while the listed reference was the current contracting officer’s technical representative (COTR) on the referenced contract, the person who completed the survey was the prior COTR on the referenced contract. Further, the person who was listed as a reference was an evaluator for the current, protested solicitation. Thus, not only is there no indication in the record that the person who completed the survey was not familiar with the subcontractor’s performance, but in addition, if the listed reference disagreed with the reference relied upon in the evaluation she had the opportunity to express that disagreement.
Zolon also asserts that the agency should have permitted its subcontractor, to respond to the adverse past performance information since the subcontractor had not had a previous opportunity to do so. However, GAO states that, where, as here, discussions are not conducted under an acquisition, an agency is not required to communicate with offerors regarding questions about adverse past performance, unless there is a clear reason to question the validity of the past performance information. The protest is denied.