The protester argued the agency had “no right” to review its dental service past performance. The protester did not list it as a reference, and the RFP prevented the evaluation of task orders and performance shorter than 24 months. GAO disagreed. The RFP permitted the agency to consider “a wide array of information from a variety of sources,” and the protester’s dental service past performance was relevant to the instant procurement.
Sterling Medical Associates, Inc., GAO B-421659.6
- Protest – The protester challenged the issuance of a task order for medical services to supplement military medical staff. In particular, the protester challenged various aspects of the agency’s past performance evaluation.
- No Right to Review – The protester argued that the agency “had no right” to review the record for its performance of the dental task order because the RFP prevented the evaluation of task orders and performance shorter than 24 months. Additionally, the protester didn’t include the task order as a past performance reference. Although the dental task order had fewer full-time equivalents and a lower dollar value, the agency found it relevant because of the similarity in scope of work. GAO found the agency’s explanation reasonable. GAO also pointed out that the RFP did not limit the agency’s consideration of other information as it provided that the agency “may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources.”
- Unreasonable Evaluations – The protester also claimed the agency’s past performance evaluation was unreasonable because it ignored the evaluation criteria and overweighted negative comments and ratings in CPARS reports and the past performance questionnaires (PPQs). Though all protests were considered, only two were discussed.
- Weighted PPQ: The protester argued the agency should have given more weight to the contract-wide assessment in the PPQ than information for individual task orders in CPARS records. GAO found that the contracting officer (CO) reasonably considered the positive and negative information in the PPQ. GAO observed the CO had particularly noted the frequency of adverse ratings had increased over time, and the protester had failed to implement effective corrective actions.
- Opportunity to Address: The protester also claimed the agency did not give it the opportunity to address the adverse performance information. GAO thought otherwise. The agency identified the PPQ as adverse past performance information and sent the protester an evaluation notice with the PPQ attached. The record showed that the protester responded to this notice with two cited examples where it addressed the employee performance issues. Thus, GAO rejected the protester argument that the agency did not give it an opportunity to address the adverse performance information. The protest was denied.
The protester was represented by Barbara A. Duncombe, Suzanne Sumner, Erin R. Davis, Brandon E. Dobyns, Alexander Gorelik, Stephen G. Darby, and Celeste Friel of Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP. The agency was represented by Joshua A. Reyes of the Army. Michelle Litteken, April Y. Shields, and Christina Sklarew of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
