The protester challenged the agency’s evaluation of past performance and the resulting source selection decision. The protester argued that the agency unreasonably disregarded CPARS information for contracts more than three years old, contrary to the solicitation’s terms, which stated only that recent experience “may be viewed more favorably.” GAO sustained in part. GAO found that the agency’s rigid three-year cutoff was inconsistent with the solicitation and rendered its comparative language concerning older performance superfluous. GAO applied the rule that an agency’s past performance evaluation must be reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria.
Veterans Management Services, Inc., B-424182.2; B-424182.3
- Background - The Department of Veterans Affairs issued a solicitation for acquisition support services under FAR subpart 8.4. The award was to be made on a best-value trade-off basis, with past performance approximately equal to price. After receiving 43 quotations, the agency initially awarded the contract to the awardee, prompting a first protest that led to corrective action. Following reevaluation, the agency again selected the awardee. The protester filed this second protest challenging the past performance evaluation and the awardee's compliance with the solicitation's period-of-performance requirement.
- Past Performance Evaluation - The protester argued the agency improperly excluded CPARS data older than three years from its evaluation, which would have significantly improved the protester's past performance rating given its history of "Exceptional" ratings on older contracts. GAO agreed. The solicitation stated only that recent experience "may be viewed more favorably" than older experience—it did not permit the agency to disregard older experience entirely. By filtering out and refusing to evaluate any contract experience over three years old, the agency rendered the solicitation's comparative language superfluous. GAO found the protester was competitively prejudiced because the awardee's price was roughly $565,000 lower, but a proper past performance evaluation could have tipped the tradeoff in the protester's favor.
- Relevancy Criteria Challenge - The protester also argued the agency applied unstated dollar-value thresholds ($1M and $100K) when determining relevancy of past performance references. GAO dismissed this argument as untimely. The solicitation was patently ambiguous about how relevancy would be evaluated, providing no criteria beyond a neutral rating for firms without relevant past performance. Under GAO's timeliness rules, patent ambiguities must be challenged before the closing date for quotations. Having failed to raise this issue pre-award, the protester could not complain post-award about the criteria the agency actually used.
- Period of Performance Discrepancy - The protester argued the awardee should have been eliminated because its price/cost schedule listed the pre-amendment period of performance dates rather than the updated dates. GAO denied, finding the protester had not been prejudiced. Even assuming the agency waived a material solicitation requirement by accepting the awardee's quotation, the protester failed to explain how it would have altered its quotation to its competitive advantage had it known the agency would accept the older POP dates.
- Recommendation - GAO recommended the agency conduct and document a new past performance evaluation consistent with the solicitation's stated criteria, followed by a new source selection decision. Alternatively, if the agency prefers, it may amend the solicitation to better reflect its actual evaluation approach and allow revised quotations.
The protester is represented by Gunjan R. Talati, Jennifer L. Andrews, and Hunter Payne of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. The government is represented by Timothy M. Saffles of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Jungi Hong and Peter H. Tran participated in the decision.