United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: OSC Solutions, Inc. 

File: B-406709; B-406709.2 

Date: August 9, 2012 

Robert H. Koehler, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for the 

protester. 

Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., Henry J. Schweiter, Esq., and Dana B. Pashkoff, Esq., 

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for National-General Supply, Inc., an intervenor. 

Maj. Troy D. Hammon, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. 

Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protester’s contention that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance 

as providing satisfactory confidence, instead of substantial confidence, is denied 

where the record shows that the agency conducted a thorough review of 

performance assessment reports prepared by both contracting officials with direct 

knowledge of prior performance and institutional customers with more limited 

knowledge. 

DECISION 

OSC Solutions, Inc., of West Palm Beach, Florida, protests the Department of the 

Air Force’s award of a contract to National-General Supply, Inc. (NGSI), of Great 

Falls, Montana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4897-12-D-0001, for a 

contractor-operated civil engineering supply store (COCESS) at Mountain Home Air 

Force Base (AFB), Idaho. OSC challenges its past performance evaluation. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP contemplated award of a “not-to-exceed”/fixed-price contract, for a 

5-month base period, with four 1-year options, for all necessary labor, supervision, 

equipment, supplies, and materials to support the Mountain Home COCESS. 

Proposals were to be evaluated under three factors: technical, past performance, 

and price. Only proposals evaluated as acceptable under the technical factor were 

considered for further evaluation. 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 

The decision issued on the date below was subject to 

a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has 

been approved for public release. 
Page 2 B-406709, B-406709.2

Of the remaining evaluation factors, past performance was significantly more 

important than price. Past performance was to be evaluated based on recent 

(within the past 3 years) and relevant (involving operation of a supply store of 

similar complexity to the Mountain Home AFB effort) contracts. Each proposal was 

to receive a past performance confidence rating of substantial, satisfactory, limited, 

no, or unknown confidence, based on information in past performance 

questionnaires (PPQ) from references provided by the offerors, and on data 

independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. RFP 

at 35. Award was to be made to the offeror whose acceptable proposal represented 

the “best value” to the government. 

Three of the six offers received by the initial August 11, 2011 closing time, including 

proposals from OSC and NGSI, were evaluated as technically acceptable by the 

source selection evaluation team (SSET). In addition to the PPQs received for the 

offerors, the contracting officer obtained available contractor performance 

assessment reports (CPAR) from the past performance information retrieval system 

(PPIRS). These included CPARs for OSC’s COCESS contracts at Kadena AFB, 

Okinawa, including one performed 2007 to 2008 (2007 contract) and another 

performed 2009 to the present (2009 contract). 

The SSET’s initial simplified source selection report (SSSR), completed in 

December 2011, evaluated all three offerors as substantial confidence under the 

past performance factor. However, the contracting officer, as source selection 

authority (SSA), found that the SSET had not considered the narrative comments 

from the CPARs, and she therefore reconvened the SSET and instructed it to look 

beyond the adjectival ratings. By January 13, 2012, the SSET completed its reevaluation of the offerors’ CPARs and PPQs, and rated OSC’s past performance as 

satisfactory confidence and NGSI’s and the third offeror’s as substantial confidence. 

The SSA then determined that NGSI’s superior past performance warranted 

payment of its slightly higher price ($9.47 million versus OSC’s $9.44 million). Upon 

learning of the resulting award to NGSI, and after a debriefing, OSC filed this 

protest, challenging its past performance evaluation. 

DISCUSSION 

OSC asserts that the past performance evaluation was unreasonable because the 

SSET ignored OSC’s correction of the problems identified in the CPARs and the 

exceptional ratings reflected in its PPQs. According to the protester, its proposal 

should have received a past performance rating of substantial confidence rather 

than the assigned satisfactory confidence. 

As a general matter, the evaluation of an offeror’s past performance, including the 

relevance and scope of the performance history to be considered, is within the 

discretion of the contracting agency. We will not question an agency’s judgment 
Page 3 B-406709, B-406709.2

unless it is unreasonable, inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, or 

undocumented. Family Entm’t Servs., Inc., d/b/a/ IMC, B-291997.4, June 10, 2004, 

2004 CPD ¶ 128 at 5. A past performance evaluation may be based on a 

reasonable perception of a contractor’s prior performance, regardless of whether 

that contractor disputes the agency’s interpretation of the underlying facts, the 

significance of those facts, or the significance of the contractor’s corrective actions. 

CMJR, LLC d/b/a Mokatron, B-405170, Sept. 7, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 175 at 6. A 

protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation does not provide a 

basis for sustaining a protest. Command Enters., Inc., B-293754, June 7, 2004, 

2004 CPD ¶ 166 at 4. 

The past performance evaluation was unobjectionable. In this regard, the record 

shows that both the SSET and the SSA considered OSC’s positive and negative 

performance record as reflected in its PPQs and CPARs. For example, the 

simplified source selection report (SSSR) discussed OSC’s overall exceptional 

ratings in the PPQs for its 2007 and 2009 Kadena AFB COCESS contracts and 

included the respondents’ positive comments. With regard to the 2007 contract, the 

comments included that OSC “was a very customer-focused company that provided 

exemplary service,” and that the contractor was “very responsive to meeting both 

routine and emergency material requirements.” Kadena 2007 Contract PPQ; SSSR 

at 7. Similarly, with regard to the 2009 contract, the respondent stated that “OSC 

consistently goes beyond the call of duty,” providing “hardware stores that are very 

modern, look like commercial stores, and offer over 1,000 products in stock.” 

Kadena 2009 Contract PPQ; SSSR at 6. 

However, in its review of the CPARs for these same contracts, the SSET found that 

OSC’s performance was only rated from satisfactory to very good, with some 

identified problems. For example, while the contracting officer in the CPAR for the 

2007 Kadena contract assigned generally very good overall ratings, she noted that 

there had been a delay in implementing a new retail management system needed to 

replace the current obsolete system, and thus only assigned OSC a satisfactory 

rating for schedule. She also noted that there had been numerous customer 

complaints about an OSC employee, leading to replacement of the employee. The 

CPAR indicated that OSC did not dissent from these findings. Kadena 2007 

Contract CPAR; SSSR at 8. 

Further, the two CPARs reviewed for the more recent 2009 Kadena contract 

indicated lower performance ratings and included more reports of performance 

problems. With regard to the first 6 months of the 2009 contract, the reporting 

contacting officer rated OSC in the CPAR as only satisfactory for quality of 

product/service, schedule (originally rated marginal by the contracting officer but 

increased by the reviewing official after OSC feedback), cost control, and for 

hardware stores, and as only “satisfactory (+)” for business relations. Kadena 2009 

Contract CPAR I; SSSR at 7. In addition, she noted confusion over ordering parts 

to complete work orders; numerous complaints about items not being stocked, 
Page 4 B-406709, B-406709.2

ordered or replenished; and that OSC’s stateside counterparts were not as helpful 

as the local operations manager. Id. With regard to a subsequent 10-month 

performance period for the 2009 contract, the assessing official rated OSC in the 

CPAR as only satisfactory for quality of product/service, schedule, cost control, 

hardware stores, and hardware wholesale. He also noted that there were minor 

discrepancies in the balance of stock items; the government had to follow-up on 

items at times; and expressed his preference that OSC find replacement parts for 

discontinued items without being asked by the government. Kadena 2009 Contract 

CPAR II; SSSR at 6-7. The SSET also considered significant that OSC’s 

performance problems on the 2009 contract were such as to warrant dispatch of an 

OSC management team to Kadena to meet with contracting personnel for 

resolution, and to require additional government man-hours to resolve contract 

deficiencies. SSSR at 8. 

In reviewing OSC’s past performance record, the SSA personally reviewed all past 

performance information for the offerors. While she recognized that the PPQs were 

more positive than the CPARs, she noted that the PPQs represented the opinions 

of two institutional customers of the COCESS contracts, which were necessarily 

limited to their interactions related to their particular missions, while the CPARs 

represented inputs from contracting personnel charged with responsibility for 

management of the contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 12; Contracting 

Officer’s Supplemental Statement at 3. 

In sum, the record indicates that the source selection team here placed more weight 

on the official performance ratings by officials with overall responsibility for 

managing OSC’s Kadena contracts than on the PPQs completed by some of the 

customers served under those contracts. We find this approach unobjectionable. 

Further, since the CPARs reviewed with respect to the two Kadena contracts, in 

particular the two CPARS for the more recent 2009 contract, indicated primarily only 

satisfactory performance, and noted the existence of a number of performance 

problems, the evaluators and SSA could reasonably conclude that OSC’s record of 

past performance warranted a rating of only satisfactory confidence (rather than 

substantial confidence). 

OSC complains that the agency failed to consider the most recent (and more 

positive) CPAR regarding its prior performance on the 2009 Kadena contract. In the 

protester’s view, since this information was available in January, and the award was 

not made until April 30, the contracting officer should have sought and considered it. 

However, there is no general requirement that an agency continue to seek updated 

performance information once its past performance evaluation is complete. See, 

e.g., CMJR, LLC d/b/a Mokatron, supra (where evaluation completed in January 

and award not made until May, agency not required to consider a CPAR from 

March); MINACT, Inc. B-400951, Mar. 27, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 76 at 7 n.4 (where 

agency used the most recent information available at time of evaluation, there is no 

requirement that agency seek more recent information at time of source selection). 
Page 5 B-406709, B-406709.2

Here, the record shows that the evaluation was completed in December 2011 and 

finalized on January 13, 2012. While the later CPAR covered the period up to 

January 12, 2012, and was dated January 24, it was not available on PPIRS until 

February 9, after the evaluation was completed. Although the agency continued 

reviews and edits to various contract documents from February 8 to April 30, it did 

not reopen the evaluation to request updated past performance information during 

that time. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 8, 15. Under these circumstances, the 

agency’s reliance on the existing record, without seeking additional information, was 

unobjectionable. 

While OSC asserts that its lower priced proposal should have been selected for 

award, the SSA found that award to NGSI would require less government oversight, 

and would result in having the function performed by a contractor with a proven 

track record of on-time deliveries, appropriately stocked parts, and replacements for 

discontinued parts. Source Selection Decision at 2. Based on NGSI’s superior past 

performance, and only slightly higher price, the agency reasonably concluded that 

NGSI’s proposal represented the best value. This conclusion was reasonable. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel