Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is denied. The protester alleged that the agency had unreasonably failed to include past performance as evaluation factor. GAO, however, noted that the FAR allows an agency to not evaluate past performance so long as the reasons for omitting past performance are adequately documented. Here, the agency had sufficiently documented it reasons for not considering past performance. Specifically, the agency had determined that the services to be acquired were not complex, so evaluating past performance would not provide valuable information.
The Department of Veterans Affairs posted an RFP seeking communications strategies and support services. The RFP provided that award would be made on best value-tradeoff between a technical factor and price. The RFP did not include a past performance factor.
Pathfinder Consultants filed a protest challenging the terms of the RFP. Pathfinder alleged the VA had unreasonably decided not to evaluate past performance.
GAO rejected Pathfinder’s argument. Under the FAR, past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer documents the reasons why past performance was not an appropriate evaluation factor. Here, the VA adequately documented its reasoning for omitting past performance. Specifically, it noted that the types of communication services to be acquired were not complex, so assessing each offeror’s technical approach would provide sufficient indication as to the likelihood of successful performance. The VA explained that reviewing past performance would not yield significant data for evaluation. The VA had discretion to determine it needs and how to meet them. GAO had no reason to question the agency’s reasoning.
Pathfinder argued that the services contemplated by the competition should be considered complex, in which case it would be important to evaluate past performance. But GAO found that his argument represented nothing more than disagreement with the agency.
Pathfinder further complained that the VA had failed to respond to all of its pre-proposal questions. But GAO will only sustain a protest challenging a failure to answer questions where the solicitation is otherwise unclear. Pathfinder had not demonstrated that the solicitation was ambiguous.
Pathfinder is represented by Ronald S. Perlman and Daniel P. Hanlon of Holland & Knight LLP. The agency is represented by Peter S. Kozlowski of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.