The awardee was performing a similar contract for the same agency. The protester said the agency should have considered this contract when evaluating past performance. GAO disagreed. The solicitation did not require the agency to consider references that had not been submitted. What’s more, the other contract was recently awarded. There wasn’t much past performance to consider.
Sysco Central Texas, Inc., GAO B-422356
- Past Performance Challenge – The protester argued the agency failed to consider one of the awardee’s current contracts in evaluating past performance. The contract was for similar work and was with the same agency.
- Solicitation Didn’t Require Agency to Consider – GAO noted the solicitation didn’t require the agency to consider references offerors had not submitted. The solicitation had only stated that the agency reserved the right to consider past performance information from other sources.
- Meaningful Consideration – The awardee’s other contract was recent. The awardee received the contract after final proposal revisions but before award of this current contract. There was not enough performance for the agency to evaluate.
- Close at Hand – The protester argued the past performance information was too close at hand for the agency to ignore. GAO disagreed. The close-at-hand doctrine only applies when evaluators personally know of other past performance information. There was no evidence the evaluators knew of the awardee’s other contract.
Patrick K. Burns and Jeremy Camacho of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani represent the protester. Amanda Stone of the Department of Defense represents the agency. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the decision.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief