Protest objecting to the evaluation of the past performance is denied. The solicitation sought services in both the continental U.S. and Europe. The protester complained that the agency had found its past performance references more relevant for the U.S region than it did for Europe. GAO reasoned that while the same performance work statement covered the U.S. and Europe, the agency reasonably considered past performance differently in Europe and the U.S. because the requirements in Europe were different than the requirements in the U.S.
The Air Force issued an RFP seeking family advocacy personal healthcare services. The RFP sought services in three regions, the continental United States, Europe, and the Pacific. Offerors could submit proposals for all three regions but could only be awarded a contract for a single region.
The Air Force received offers from several companies, including Fidelity Decypher Services, LLC, WJM Professional Services, and IVA’AL Solutions, LLC. The Air Force awarded the U.S. contract to WJM and the Europe contract to IVA’AL. Fidelity filed a protest challenging both awards.
Fidelity argued that Air Force applied unstated criteria in evaluating its past performance. Fidelity submitted past performance references for work it had performed in Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam. The Air Force found that Fidelity’s references were highly relevant for the U.S. region. But the agency determined the references were merely relevant for the Europe region because they did not include overseas locations. Fidelity argued that the performance work statement applied to all three geographic regions, and the RFP had not stated that offerors’ past performance would be downgraded for a lack of overseas locations.
But GAO found that the Air Force had a reasonable basis for assessing Fidelity’s past performance differently for the U.S. and Europe regions. An agency may take into account consideration that are not expressly stated but reasonably encompassed by the criteria in the solicitation. Here, the RFP sought services in three geographic locations. Thus, the agency could reasonably assess the geographic dispersion in past performance references. Naturally, a reference that lacked geographic dispersion could be more relevant for one region but less relevant for another region that required greater dispersion.
In this case, the Air Force found that while performing in Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam showed that Fidelity was able to perform under U.S. laws, it did not show that the company was able to provide the same services under European laws. The Air Force’s evaluation of past performance was a reasonable application of the stated criteria.
Fidelity also argued that the Air Force disregarded past performance related to IDIQ contracts and instead improperly focused on CPARs related to a few task orders. GAO found that the Air Force properly took into account the information Fidelity provided on the IDIQ contracts, but the agency also reasonably looked to the task order CPARs that Fidelity had not provided. The agency’s actions were consistent with the RFP, which did not limit the consideration of past performance to only information provided by the offeror.
Lastly, Fidelity complained that the Air Force had assigned a strength to the company’s staffing plan for the Europe region but did not assess that aspect as a strength for the U.S. GAO, however, reasoned that the technical evaluation reasonably distinguished between the requirements of the Europe region, where Fidelity’s staffing plan was more beneficial, and the U.S., where its plan did not provide a similar benefit.
Fidelity is represented by Kristin E. Zachman and Johnathan M. Bailey of Bailey & Bailey, P.C. Intervenor WJM is represented by Barbara A. Duncombe, Suzanne Sumner, Brandon E. Dobyns, Erin R. Davis, and Sean A. Graves of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. Intervenor IVA’AL is represented by James M. White of Marshall & White. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Erika L. Whelan Retta, Josephine R. Farinelli, and Kent H. Grubb of the of Air Force. GAO attorneys Paul N. Wengert and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
