The protester challenged the agency’s evaluation of past performance and the awardee’s qualifications. The protester argued that the agency unfairly assessed the protester’s past performance as “satisfactory confidence,” while the awardee unreasonably received “substantial confidence.” GAO rejected the argument, finding that the protester failed to demonstrate sufficient experience in transporting fuel, which accounted for a large portion of the contract.
Centerline Logistics Corporation, GAO B-423838; B-423838.2
- Background – The Department of the Air Force issued a request for proposals for fuel transportation services with a focus on providing bulk jet fuel and marine diesel. The agency received proposals from two firms — the protester and the awardee. After evaluations, the agency awarded the contract to the awardee for superior past performance. The protester challenged this award and alleged various evaluation flaws with past performance ratings, discussions, and the best-value tradeoff.
- Evaluation of Past Performance – The protester contended that the agency improperly evaluated their past performance by assigning a “satisfactory confidence” rating while the awardee received “substantial confidence.” GAO found that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable. The protester failed to demonstrate sufficient experience transporting aviation fuel. This accounted for a large portion of the contract requirements. GAO noted that differences in ratings stemmed from the quality of references provided by the protester versus the awardee.
- Disparate Treatment Allegations – The protester also argued that the agency engaged in disparate treatment in evaluating past performance. GAO determined that the evaluation differences were due to the substantive differences in the proposals. Each past performance reference was assessed based on its scope and complexity. The agency found varying levels of relevance in the protester’s references compared to the awardee’s. This justified the different ratings.
- Meaningful Discussions – The protester claimed the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions by not raising the relevancy of their past performance during negotiations. GAO held that the agency was not obligated to disclose this aspect because it was not considered a significant weakness. The discussions focused instead on clarifications and were deemed adequate according to procurement norms.
The protester is represented by Lawrence P. Block, Esq., Bryant Gardner, Esq., Elizabeth Leavy, Esq., and Michael Hill, Esq., of Winston & Strawn LLP. The intervenor, Vane Line Bunkering, LLC, is represented by Jayna M. Rust, Esq., of Thompson Coburn LLP. The government is represented by Isabelle Cutting, Esq., Hector Rivera-Hernandez, Esq., Stephen W. Adamsky, Esq., Todd P. Federici, Esq., and W. Craig Mullen, Esq., of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Janis R. Millete, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., participated in the decision.
