• 16, Price Evaluation Report (PER) at 2; exh.
  • AR, Tab O, Cost Evaluation Report (COR), at 6.
  • AR, Tab D, Source Selection Evaluation Report, at 8.

However, of the eight contracts noted above that were evaluated for relevancy, the agency only received three questionnaire scores.

See AR, Tab 8, SupplyCore Evaluation Notices and Responses.

AR, Tab 8, SupplyCore Evaluation Notices and Responses, at 21-25.

We will question an agency’s evaluation conclusions where they are unreasonable or undocumented.
Photo provided by Flickr
By ignoring the PPQs it had at hand, the agency here failed to satisfy this standard in its evaluation of past performance.

FEMA maintains that its decision not to consider the PPQs was reasonable because the factors for evaluation under the PPQs did not match the factors for evaluation under the SSN.

The record shows that the price evaluators’ concerns persisted.

We also conclude that ABJV was prejudiced by the misevaluation of CGJV’s past performance.
Photo provided by Flickr
The RFP here provided that the agency would “first evaluate the relevancy of the past performance references submitted in the offerors past technical performance proposal as well as obtained through other means (PPIRS, interviews, etc.)” and would “next evaluate the quality of this past performance through a review of questionnaire responses and information available in CPARS.” RFP at 177.


The past performance evaluation here was unobjectionable.

AR, Tab 27, PAE Final Cost/Price Evaluation, at 5-14, 45; AR, Tab 20, SSAC Report, at 007.
Photo provided by Flickr
at 358 (finding that even if technical evaluation team made a mistake in overlooking the different grade, they did not clearly err in assigning risk rating in light of this mistake, and error was of the variety of “small or immaterial errors” not sufficient to invalidate a procurement decision) (citing Lockheed, 4 F.3d at 960; Grumman Data Systems Corp., 15 F.3d at 1048).

The Air Force evaluated the relevancy of the four ID/IQ contracts as follows:
Photo provided by Flickr
Specifically, even though there was no record of CTR Management’s performance between the award of that contract in August and the submission of proposals under this RFP in November,[9] NASA maintains that it still was proper to evaluate the HHS contract as both recent and relevant.

See AR, Tab D, Re-Evaluation of Innovative Builders, at 14.

NASA argues that recency and relevance were separate elements of the past performance evaluation, and therefore, the agency could evaluate past performance for CTR Management despite having no record of the firm’s performance.

1, Contractor Evaluation Form Correspondence, at 1.

Further, we do not see how the fact that one joint venturer had recently been awarded a contract for similar services would have any reasonable relationship to the agency’s past performance evaluation absent a record of the quality of that performance.

These evaluations may be used to support future award decisions.

The evaluators’ analysis indicated that Kiewit’s proposal would increase in price depending on the actual quantities ordered under the emergency spillway CLIN.[6] Id.

AR, Tab 8, Revised Past Performance Evaluation, at 3.

Given the discussion of CTR Management’s HHS contract positively in both the evaluation report and the source selection decision, the record shows that the misevaluation influenced the agency’s tradeoff judgment.

Supplemental Technical Evaluation and Consensus Report (CR) at 9.

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 and with the procurement statutes and regulations, and to ensure that it is adequately documented.