Protest Denial Details Released: $960M US Air Force operations, logistics, and training support IDIQ

DIGEST

Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and adequately documented.

DISCUSSION

VXL protests the evaluation of its past performance, arguing that the agency unreasonably evaluated the relevancy of its past performance contract references.  Protest at 16-17; Comments at 5-14.  Specifically, the protester argues that the agency erred in assigning relevancy ratings for three contract references, along with an overall assessment rating of satisfactory confidence because the three contract references covered all the PWS requirements.  Comments at 6.  According to the protester, had the agency properly evaluated the submitted references, each would have received a relevancy rating of very relevant, resulting in an overall confidence assessment of substantial confidence.  Id.  In support, the protester provides a line-by-line comparison of the contract references to the PWS requirements to buttress its claim that these three references should have received a higher relevancy rating.  Id. at 6-13.    In its response, the Air Force counters that its well documented past performance evaluation of VXL’s proposal was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria.  The agency argues that the relevancy ratings assigned were based on the protester’s failure to sufficiently explain how the three contract references at issue aligned with the entirety of the PWS requirements for pool 1, operations and logistics.  See generally, COS at 14, 16-17; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 12-14, 16-17.  Where a protester challenges an agency’s past performance evaluation, we will review the evaluation to determine if it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, procurement statutes and regulations, and to ensure that the agency’s rationale is adequately documented.  Linchpin Solutions, Inc., B-419564,  May 10, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 200 at 4; D&G Support Services, LLC, B-419245,  B-419245.3, Jan. 6, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 15 at 8.  The evaluation of an offeror’s past performance, including the agency’s determination of the relevance and scope of an offeror’s performance history, is a matter of agency discretion, which we will not find improper unless the agency’s assessments are unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.  See, e.g., Sterling Medical Assocs., Inc., B-418674,  B-418674.2, July 23, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 255 at 8; CSR, Inc., B-413973, B-413973.2, Jan. 13, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 64 at 5.  Before turning to the merits of the protester’s allegations, we first address some anomalies in the protester’s presentation of its arguments.  In its protest, and consistent with the numbering utilized by the agency, the protester identified five contract references.  PPI No. 1 was a prime task order for mud boat training performed by VXL; this reference was evaluated as relevant.  PPI No. 2 was a prime task order for advanced diver training performed by VXL; this reference was evaluated as relevant.  PPI No. 3 was a prime task order for civil affairs brigade support performed by VXL; this reference was evaluated as somewhat relevant.  PPI No. 4 was a prime contract reference for base operations and security support performed by Vectrus, VXL’s teaming partner; this reference was evaluated as somewhat relevant.  PPI No. 5 was a prime task order for providing life and base operations supports performed by Vectrus; this reference was evaluated as relevant…

DECISION

VXL Enterprises, LLC, located in Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-22-R-0021 which was issued by the Department of the Air Force to acquire operations, logistics, and training support services.1  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the past performance factor.    We deny the protest.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story