With references to past performance

This GAO decision is interesting in that, factually, it arises in connection with a solicitation conducted in Malawi. Its official government website on my Google search suggests the site might be hacked. The CIA World Factbook describes Malawi's economy as ranking "among the world's most densely populated and least developed countries. The country’s economic performance has historically been constrained by policy inconsistency, macroeconomic instability, limited connectivity to the region and the world, poor infrastructure, rampant corruption, high population growth, and poor health and education outcomes that limit labor productivity. The economy depends on substantial inflows of economic assistance from the IMF, the World Bank, and individual donor nations." In other words, there is likely not a deep history and trained understanding of the niceties of the procurement norms we are accustomed to.

Such as the role of past performance in evaluating bidder responsibility or bid responsiveness. The decision involves many issues, but this post is limited to the past performance controversy, because I suspect Malawians may not be alone in the failure, seen in this decision, to appreciate the past performance evaluation. It is not a "tick the box" evaluation, though it often seems that way.

The usual caveats apply: I take terrible liberties with the presentation of source material, so you are admonished to go to the source at the links.

Matter of: Fattani Offset Printers

On June 23, 2017, the United States Agency for International Development (the agency) issued an RFP for printing, binding, and distribution services to be performed pursuant to a fixed-price contract over a two-year period. The RFP specified, among other matters, that “[t]he purpose of this contract is printing, binding, and distribution of 773,025 English Standard Four Learners’ Books (LBs) and 6,000 Stock Management Cards.” Fattani Offset Printers, of Blantyre, Malawi, protests the award of a contract to Kris Offset & Screen Printers, Ltd., also of Blantyre, Malawi, alleging the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal.

Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering two evaluation factors, technical and price. RFP at 50. For the technical factor, the RFP divided a total of 100 points between technical understanding and past performance, with 85 points allocated to technical understanding and 15 points to past performance. Fattani, low offeror, was awarded 35 out of 100 points. Kris Offset was awarded 92 points, and the contract.

GAO considered all of the firm’s allegations and found no basis to sustain the protest, noting at the outset that, in reviewing protests challenging an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office does not reevaluate proposals or substitute our judgment for that of the agency; rather, we review the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, as well as applicable statutes and regulations.

Past Performance

The RFP instructed offerors to provide a list of at least five organizations to serve as past performance references. For each organization, offerors were instructed to provide a contact name, address, telephone number, description of the work performed, and date of performance. The RFP also stated that proposals would be evaluated based on successful completion of previous similar projects.

Fattani provided reference letters from five different organizations. Each reference letter provided a positive review of Fattani’s performance. The record shows that the agency contacted three of Fattani’s references, and it also contacted references outside of Fattani’s listed references. Following its review, the agency assigned Fattani’s proposal two weaknesses and several significant weaknesses. Chief among the agency’s concerns was that Fattani had received negative past performance evaluations. The agency also determined that Fattani had not performed any projects of similar size and complexity (i.e., contracts of $5 million in value with distributions to over 5,500 outlets). The agency assigned Fattani’s past performance proposal only 5 out of a total of 15 points.

Fattani asserts that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable because the RFP did not expressly permit the agency to seek additional past performance references. Additionally or alternatively, Fattani contends that the agency improperly determined that none of Fattani’s past performance references were of similar size and complexity.

In light of the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria, we find that the agency reasonably evaluated Fattani’s past performance references. Contrary to Fattani’s view, our cases explain that an agency is generally not precluded from considering any relevant past performance information, regardless of its source. Consequently, the agency acted reasonably when it solicited additional past performance references beyond those listed in Fattani’s proposal, notwithstanding the fact that the solicitation did not specify that the agency could seek alternate past performance information sources. Furthermore, GAO’s in camera review of the record reveals that Fattani received negative reviews of its performance from some of its listed references and other entities the agency had contacted.

As to Fattani’s alternate allegation, we find that the agency reasonably evaluated Fattani’s past performance references for similar size and complexity. Of Fattani’s five references, only one adequately describes the performance, and that job was not similar in size or complexity to the instant contract. That job required distribution to only 90 stores, while the instant contract requires distribution to over 5,500 outlets. Thus, Fattani’s past performance proposal did not demonstrate that it had successfully completed previous similar projects. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we find that the agency reasonably evaluated Fattani’s proposal under the past performance factor.

The protest is denied.