Protest challenging the agency’s best value tradeoff is denied. The awardee’s proposal was higher-rated but also higher priced than the protester’s. The solicitation, however, provided that the single non-price factor, past performance, was more important than price. The awardee had a significantly higher past performance rating than the protester, and that higher rating merited a higher price.
The General Services Administration issued a solicitation seeking janitorial services. The solicitation stated that award would be based on a tradeoff between price and past performance, but past performance was significantly more important than price.
Richen Management and Sparkle Janitorial Services, Inc. both submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. GSA assigned Sparkle an Excellent past performance rating and determined that its evaluated price was $1.8 million. Richen received a Satisfactory past performance rating, and its evaluated price was about $1.3 million. GSA determined that Sparkle offered the best vale and made award accordingly. Richen protested, alleging that GSA failed to justify its best value determination.
GAO was unpersuaded by Richen’s argument. The record reflected that GSA considered the respective merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria and rightly concluded that Sparkle’s more favorable past performance justified its higher price. Indeed, GAO noted, the solicitation provided that past performance was significantly more important than price.
GAO further noted that the SSA analyzed each offeror’s past performance references. Sparkle submitted two reference with excellent rating and one of very good. Sparkle’s references also detailed their positive experiences in working with the company. Richen on the other hand submitted two references with satisfactory ratings, and it had an unsatisfactory CPARS rating on a contract that was ultimately terminated for cause. Under the circumstances, GSA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Sparkle’s significantly better past performance warranted a higher price.
Richen is represented by Richard McCue. The agency is represented by Robert W. Foltman of the General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Jacob Talbott, Heather Weiner, and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
