The protester argued that a reasonable evaluation of its past performance would have led to an award. It claimed the agency relied too heavily on its negative Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report. GAO ruled the agency had discretion in evaluating the past performance. It additionally found that the agency adequately reviewed multiple CPARS reports instead of focusing on one negative report.
Sheela Inc., GAO B-423412
- Background - The protester challenged the award of six contracts by the agency under solicitation No. FA448424R0017 for design-build and construction projects at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst, New Jersey.
- Evaluation of Past Performance - The protester claimed the agency relied too heavily on a negative CPARS report while ignoring more favorable reports. GAO explained that agencies have discretion in evaluating past performance and will not overturn reasonable assessments. While the protester argued that only one negative report was unfairly weighted, GAO found the agency reviewed multiple CPARS reports and evaluated overall performance history, concluding that the assessment was justified.
- CPARS Rebuttal - The protester argued that the agency did not adequately consider its rebuttal to the negative CPARS report, claiming this was against FAR section 42.1503(d). GAO clarified that this FAR provision relates to past performance evaluations of completed contracts rather than evaluations during the proposal process. GAO determined that the agency, indeed, was aware of the rebuttal when making its evaluation and deemed the evaluation both reasonable and consistent with requirements.
The protester is represented by Ross Fox, Esq., of A Y Strauss, LLC. The government agency, the Department of the Air Force, is represented by Nina R. Paladino, Esq., Major Ryan P. Payne, Sarah Needham, Esq., Kyle Paladino, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq. GAO attorneys Michael A. Eible III, Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., participated in the decision.
Sheela Inc