JACO & MCC Joint Venture, LLP
B-293354.2
May 18, 2004
Skip to Highlights
View Decision
The RFP, issued April 16, 2003 as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity job order contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, for a contractor to provide maintenance, repair, and minor construction services at various Army facilities in Texas and New Mexico.[2] The value of the resulting contract is expected to be $17.5 million over the 5-year period, with a guaranteed minimum of $500,000 for the base year and $350,000 for each option year exercised. RFP at 5.
As amended, the RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government, price and other factors (experience and past performance) considered. The RFP stated that the experience factor was comprised of two subfactors: (1) list of similar work and (2) history of continuous business. The past performance factor was comprised of three subfactors: (1) quality of service, (2) timeliness of performance, and
(3) customer satisfaction.[3] The experience and past performance factors were of equal importance, and collectively, were more important than price. RFP at 89-92.
The RFP required offerors to submit certain specific types of information with their proposals. Among other things, for the evaluation of experience, offerors were directed to describe their experience with the same or similar type contracts of complexity similar to the solicited requirements which were either completed within the past 5 years or are currently in progress. The RFP further required that at least five of these contracts be valued at $500,000 or more. In addition, offerors were to provide written evidence that they had at least a 5-year history of conducting continuous business as a general contractor. RFP at 79.
The solicitation contained, as an attachment, past performance surveys that offerors were to provide to personnel capable of evaluating their performance under those contracts identified in their experience proposal. The contract references were to complete and return the past performance survey to the designated Army personnel. The RFP stated that the agency, in its past performance evaluation, would consider the information provided in the survey responses and could also obtain information from sources other than those identified by the offeror. The RFP stated that the evaluation would be a subjective assessment based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances associated with the offeror's performance over the past
5 years. RFP at 90-91. The RFP further stated that the agency reserved the right to verify any information provided by offerors, and indicated that:
[p]erformance risk assessment will be an integral part of the evaluation process, particularly in regards to the past performance and experience evaluation factors. Surveys or subsequent discussions that uncover significant to high-level performance risk will impact the past performance and experience ratings for that offeror.
RFP at 78. Performance risk was to be evaluated using the following adjectival evaluation rating scale: low, moderate, high, and unknown. Id. at 81.
As to price, offerors were instructed to complete a price schedule that included, for each period of the contemplated contract (base, 1st option, 2nd option, etc.), contract line item numbers (CLIN) that set forth the required scope of work. Except for one CLIN, offerors were to submit percentage factors (i.e., coefficients) that were a net decrease from or increase to the unit prices listed in the Job Order Contract Unit Price Book that generally provides unit prices for construction work. RFP at 4-5. Price proposals would be evaluated for reasonableness and, for evaluation purposes only, each offeror's proposed coefficient would be evaluated on the following assumptions: (1) that 95% of the work would be performed during normal working hours, with 5% accomplished during other than normal working hours; and (2) that 85% of the work would be performed in Texas and 15% performed in New Mexico. Id. at 89-90.
Eight offerors, including JACO/MCC and Vistacon, submitted proposals by the
June 24, 2003 extended closing date.[4] The proposals were evaluated by the agency's source selection evaluation board (SSEB), and the consensus ratings, which were supported by written evaluation narratives, were as follows:
[6]
vis- -vis
Id.
Id.
[7]
Base Techs., Inc.
see Urban-Meridian Joint Venture
[8] The Paintworks, Inc.
Base Techs., Inc. supra
[9] [10]
[11]
[1] i.e. http://www.sba.gov/8abd/indexmentorprogram.html
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Highlights
JACO & MCC Joint Venture (JACO/MCC), a mentor-protege joint venture, protests the award of a contract to Vistacon, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABK05-03-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army, for construction and repair projects. JACO/MCC protests the evaluation of proposals and the selection of Vistacon's higher-priced, higher-rated proposal for award.
We deny the protest.
B-293354.2, JACO & MCC Joint Venture, LLP, May 18, 2004
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued April 16, 2003 as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity job order contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, for a contractor to provide maintenance, repair, and minor construction services at various Army facilities in Texas and New Mexico.[2] The value of the resulting contract is expected to be $17.5 million over the 5-year period, with a guaranteed minimum of $500,000 for the base year and $350,000 for each option year exercised. RFP at 5.
As amended, the RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government, price and other factors (experience and past performance) considered. The RFP stated that the experience factor was comprised of two subfactors: (1) list of similar work and (2) history of continuous business. The past performance factor was comprised of three subfactors: (1) quality of service, (2) timeliness of performance, and
(3) customer satisfaction.[3] The experience and past performance factors were of equal importance, and collectively, were more important than price. RFP at 89-92.
The RFP required offerors to submit certain specific types of information with their proposals. Among other things, for the evaluation of experience, offerors were directed to describe their experience with the same or similar type contracts of complexity similar to the solicited requirements which were either completed within the past 5 years or are currently in progress. The RFP further required that at least five of these contracts be valued at $500,000 or more. In addition, offerors were to provide written evidence that they had at least a 5-year history of conducting continuous business as a general contractor. RFP at 79.
The solicitation contained, as an attachment, past performance surveys that offerors were to provide to personnel capable of evaluating their performance under those contracts identified in their experience proposal. The contract references were to complete and return the past performance survey to the designated Army personnel. The RFP stated that the agency, in its past performance evaluation, would consider the information provided in the survey responses and could also obtain information from sources other than those identified by the offeror. The RFP stated that the evaluation would be a subjective assessment based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances associated with the offeror's performance over the past
5 years. RFP at 90-91. The RFP further stated that the agency reserved the right to verify any information provided by offerors, and indicated that:
[p]erformance risk assessment will be an integral part of the evaluation process, particularly in regards to the past performance and experience evaluation factors. Surveys or subsequent discussions that uncover significant to high-level performance risk will impact the past performance and experience ratings for that offeror.
RFP at 78. Performance risk was to be evaluated using the following adjectival evaluation rating scale: low, moderate, high, and unknown. Id. at 81.
As to price, offerors were instructed to complete a price schedule that included, for each period of the contemplated contract (base, 1st option, 2nd option, etc.), contract line item numbers (CLIN) that set forth the required scope of work. Except for one CLIN, offerors were to submit percentage factors (i.e., coefficients) that were a net decrease from or increase to the unit prices listed in the Job Order Contract Unit Price Book that generally provides unit prices for construction work. RFP at 4-5. Price proposals would be evaluated for reasonableness and, for evaluation purposes only, each offeror's proposed coefficient would be evaluated on the following assumptions: (1) that 95% of the work would be performed during normal working hours, with 5% accomplished during other than normal working hours; and (2) that 85% of the work would be performed in Texas and 15% performed in New Mexico. Id. at 89-90.
Eight offerors, including JACO/MCC and Vistacon, submitted proposals by the
June 24, 2003 extended closing date.[4] The proposals were evaluated by the agency's source selection evaluation board (SSEB), and the consensus ratings, which were supported by written evaluation narratives, were as follows:
| | Past Performance | Performance Risk | Proposal Risk[5] | |
| Vistacon | Excellent | Excellent | Low | Low |
| Offeror A | Excellent | Excellent | Low | Low |
| JACO/MCC | [DELETED] | [DELETED] | [DELETED] | [DELETED] |
| Offeror B | Good | Fair | Moderate | Moderate |
| Offeror C | Poor | Fair | High | High |
| Offeror D | Poor | Neutral | Moderate | High |
| Offeror E | Fair | Fair | Mod-High | Moderate |
| Offeror F | Poor | Fair | High | High |
[6]
| | JACO | MCC | Overall Rating for JACO/MCC |
| Experience | [DELETED] | [DELETED] | [DELETED] |
| 1. List of Similar Work 2. History of Continuous Bus. | [DELETED] [DELETED] | [DELETED] [DELETED] | [DELETED] [DELETED] |
| Past Performance | [DELETED] | [DELETED] | [DELETED] |
| 1. Quality of Service 2. Timeliness of Performance 3. Customer Satisfaction | [DELETED] | [DELETED] | [DELETED] |
| [DELETED] | [DELETED] | [DELETED] | |
| [DELETED] | [DELETED] | [DELETED] | |
| Performance Risk | [DELETED] | [DELETED] | [DELETED] |
| Proposal Risk | [DELETED] | [DELETED] | [DELETED] |
vis- -vis
| | JACO/MCC | Offeror A | Vistacon |
| Experience | [DELETED] | Excellent | Excellent |
| 1. List of Similar Work 2. History of Continuous Bus. | [DELETED] | Excellent | Excellent |
| [DELETED] | Good | Excellent | |
| Past Performance | [DELETED] | Excellent | Excellent |
| 1. Quality of Service 2. Timeliness of Performance 3. Customer Satisfaction | [DELETED] | Excellent | Excellent |
| [DELETED] | Excellent | Excellent | |
| [DELETED] | Excellent | Excellent | |
| Performance Risk | [DELETED] | Low | Low |
| Proposal Risk | [DELETED] | Low | Low |
Id.
Id.
[7]
Base Techs., Inc.
see Urban-Meridian Joint Venture
[8] The Paintworks, Inc.
Base Techs., Inc. supra
[9] [10]
[11]
[1] i.e. http://www.sba.gov/8abd/indexmentorprogram.html
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]