United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: SIMMEC Training Solutions 

File: B-406819

Date: August 20, 2012

Merri Tyrrel, SIMMEC Training Solutions, for the protester.

James P. Winthrop, Esq., Naval Supply Systems Command, for the agency.

Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging an agency’s past performance evaluation is denied, where the 

agency reasonably assessed offerors’ past performance in accordance with the 

solicitation’s evaluation criterion.

DECISION

SIMMEC Training Solutions, of Oceanside, California, protests the award of a 

contract to Tier-One Quality Solutions (TQS), of Virginia Beach, Virginia, under 

solicitation No. N00189-12-R-0019, issued by the Department of the Navy, Navy 

Expeditionary Combat Command, for combat first aid instruction.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a 

fixed-price contract for a base year and four option years for instructors for 24 threeday combat first aid courses. A performance work statement (PWS) was provided 

to describe the required services. Among other things, offerors were informed that 

the training would be provided to 360 total personnel (180 personnel in Virginia 

Beach, Virginia, and 180 personnel in San Diego, California), and that the courses 

were to be divided into classes containing between 15 and 40 students each.1

 1

 The Navy posted a combined synopsis/solicitation on the FedBizOpps website 

that identified evaluation criteria and the basis for award. Although the combined 

 

(continued...)
Page 2 B-406819 

Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Solicitation, PWS at 4. The courses use pigs for live 

tissue training to simulate battlefield trauma care. Id. at 6. Offerors were informed 

that the contractor was required to have a valid Association for Assessment and 

Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) certification and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) license. AR, Tab 1, Combined 

Synopsis/Solicitation, at 2.

Award was to be made on a best value basis, considering technical acceptability, 

past performance, and price. Id. at 2-4. Offerors were informed that proposals 

would be evaluated under the technical acceptability factor on a pass/fail basis with 

respect to whether the offeror had demonstrated that it could fully perform the PWS 

services by the required performance start date. Id. at 2.

Proposals were to be qualitatively evaluated under the past performance factor as 

substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, 

or unknown confidence. The solicitation provided that offerors without a record of 

relevant past performance would receive a neutral rating.2

 Id. at 3. The solicitation 

instructed offerors to provide past performance information for no more than three 

relevant contracts performed within the past five years. Id. at 2. Offerors were 

informed that relevance would be determined by the contract’s similarity to the 

RFP’s requirements, based upon scope and magnitude. Scope was stated to be 

experience in the PWS areas, and magnitude was stated to be the similarity of the 

value of the contract work with the PWS requirements. Id. The solicitation also 

informed offerors that the agency may verify past performance information by 

contacting references or reviewing other information in the Contractor Performance 

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Id.

With respect to price, offerors were informed that price would be evaluated by 

adding the offeror’s base year and option years' prices. Id. at 4. Price was stated 

to be less important than past performance, and offerors were informed that the 

agency would perform a past performance/price tradeoff analysis to determine best 

value. Id. at 2, 4.

 

(...continued)

synopsis/solicitation stated that a written solicitation would not be issued, the Navy 

in fact issued a written solicitation that provided the PWS.

2

 As relevant here, the solicitation defined satisfactory confidence as follows: 

“Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a 

reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.” 

AR, Tab 1, Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, at 3.
Page 3 B-406819 

The agency received seven proposals, including TQS’s and SIMMEC’s. The firms’ 

proposals were evaluated as follows:3

Technical Acceptability Past Performance Price

TQS Acceptable Satisfactory Confidence $1,733,623

SIMMEC Acceptable Neutral $1,898,400

AR, Tab 7, Contract Review Board Presentation, at 9, 11, 30.

SIMMEC’s neutral rating under the past performance factor reflected the agency’s 

judgment that SIMMEC had not shown any relevant past performance. In its 

proposal, SIMMEC provided past performance references for eight contracts that 

ranged in value from $36,000 to $858,000. AR, Tab 6, SIMMIC Technical Proposal, 

at 21-25. Because the solicitation limited offerors to 3 past performance references, 

the agency only considered SIMMIC’s first three references. These references 

were the following: a $132,160 contract for providing 18 one-day classes; a 

$144,975 contract to provide a 4-day course, and a 5-day course; and a $62,280 

contract to provide two 5-day courses. AR, Tab 7, Contract Review Board 

Presentation, at 15, 16. In assessing the magnitude of offerors’ past performance 

references, the agency compared actual value of the offerors’ past performance to 

the IGE. Id. at 3, 15-17. The agency considered an offeror’s past performance to 

be of similar magnitude where it was at least $279,000.4

 Contracting Officer’s 

Statement at 3. Because the value of SIMMEC’s three references was much less 

than that figure, SIMMEC’s past performance was found to be not similar in 

magnitude, and thus not relevant. Contracting Officer Statement at 8; AR, Tab 7, 

Contract Review Board Presentation, at 15-17.

The awardee’s satisfactory confidence rating under the past performance factor 

reflected the agency’s judgment that TQS had provided references that gave the 

agency a reasonable expectation that TQS could successfully perform the contract. 

TQS provided three past performance references in its proposal. Two of the 

references (valued at $23,820 and $230,960) were found not to be relevant. The 

agency found TQS’s remaining reference for a $1,999,585 contract to be relevant 

both as to scope and magnitude. AR, Tab 7, Contract Review Board Presentation, 

at 12-13. 

 3

 The Independent Government Estimate (IGE) for the procurement was 

$2,959,496. AR, Tab 7, Contract Review Board Presentation, at 3.

4

 SIMMEC does not challenge the Navy’s use of $279,000 to determine whether an 

offeror’s past performance was of similar magnitude to the contract requirements.
Page 4 B-406819 

The agency performed a past performance/price tradeoff analysis. With respect to 

SIMMIC’s and TQS’s proposals, the agency concluded that TQS’s lower price and 

satisfactory confidence past performance rating reflected better value than 

SIMMIC’s higher price and neutral rating. In this regard, the agency noted that “it 

was not in the best interest of the government to pay a higher cost for the purpose 

of obtaining an unknown expectation of performance when [TQS] obtained a 

reasonable expectation of performance.” Id. at 31.

Award was made to TQS, and this protest followed.

DISCUSSION

SIMMEC challenges the agency’s evaluation of its and TQS’s past performance. 

With respect to the evaluation of its own past performance, SIMMEC contends that 

the agency should have found the firm’s three past performance references to be of 

similar magnitude to the solicitation requirements.5 Specifically, SIMMEC argues 

that the agency unreasonably considered the magnitude of its past performance by 

considering only the actual value and length of its prior work. Comments at 3.

An agency’s evaluation of past performance, which includes its consideration of the 

relevance, scope, and significance of an offeror’s performance history, is a matter of 

agency discretion which we will not disturb unless the agency’s assessments are 

unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation criteria, or undocumented. See, 

e.g., Yang Enter., Inc.; Santa Barbara Applied Research, Inc., B-294605.4 et al., 

Apr. 1, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 65 at 5; Acepex Mgmt. Corp., B-283080 et al., Oct. 4, 

1999, 99–2 CPD ¶ 77 at 3, 5. Since the agency is responsible for defining its needs 

and the best method for accommodating them, we will not substitute our judgment 

for reasonably based past performance ratings. See MFM Lamey Group, LLC, 

B-402377, Mar. 25, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 81 at 10.

The record shows that the agency reasonably determined that SIMMEC did not 

have relevant past performance. As noted above, the solicitation provided that 

relevance would be determined in part by comparing the magnitude of the identified 

past performance with the contract requirements. In this regard, the solicitation 

stated that magnitude of past performance referred to “the dollar amount of work 

 5

 SIMMEC acknowledges that it submitted more than the permitted number of past 

performance references and states that it accepts the agency’s decision to consider 

only the first three references. Comments at 3 n.3. In any event, we have found, in 

such cases, that where a solicitation provides for consideration of a limited number 

of past performance references, the agency is not required to consider submissions 

beyond that number. Enterprise Solutions Realized, Inc., B-405203, Sep. 22, 2011, 

2011 CPD ¶ 196 at 7 (agency was not required to consider a fourth experience 

reference where the solicitation limited the number of references to three). 
Page 5 B-406819 

actually performed under the contract.” AR, Tab 1, Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, 

at 2 (emphasis added). As noted above, the Navy considered an offeror’s past 

performance to be of similar magnitude where it was at least $279,000, which 

SIMMEC does not challenge. The value of the work that SIMMEC actually 

performed under its past performance references is much less than $279,000.

SIMMEC does not contend that the actual value of its past performance is similar in 

magnitude to the contract requirements. Rather, SIMMEC argues that, to determine 

the value of its past performance, the agency should have multiplied the value of its 

past performance by an amount that would make the duration of its performed work 

equal to the solicitation requirements. Comments at 3. SIMMEC does not identify 

any solicitation or other requirement for the agency to do so, and we can see no 

reason why an agency should inflate an offeror’s past performance in this way. 

SIMMEC also complains that the Navy did not review the CPARS to identify other 

relevant past performance for SIMMEC.6

 Comments at 4. The record shows, 

however, that the contracting officer reviewed the Past Performance Information 

Retrieval System, which includes CPARS, but was unable to locate any additional 

relevant past performance information for SIMMEC. Contracting Officer’s 

Statement at 4; AR, Tab 7, Contract Review Board Presentation, at 17. SIMMEC 

claims, however, that it performed a contract valued at over $34 million, which the 

agency should have found on CPARS. Comments at 3. The contract identified by 

SIMMEC is the same as one of the later past performance references that the 

agency did not consider, although SIMMEC stated in its proposal that the value of 

this contract was only $858,000, and was on-going. Given SIMMEC’s concession 

that the agency did not have to consider more than the first three references in its 

proposal, which did not include this work, this objection provides no basis to 

question the agency’s past performance evaluation.

SIMMEC also challenges the agency’s past performance evaluation of TQS, 

complaining that the awardee’s only relevant past performance was attributable to a 

subcontractor, and not to TQS. Protest at 4. The record shows that TQS proposed 

the incumbent contractor as a subcontractor to perform a significant portion of the 

work, and submitted past performance information for this subcontractor. The 

agency credited TQS for the subcontractor’s past performance, of which the agency 

also had first-hand knowledge. We have no basis to object to this. We have found 

an agency’s consideration of a proposed subcontractor’s past performance 

permissible where, as here, the solicitation neither prohibits nor mentions the 

evaluation of such information. Singleton Enterprises, B-298576, Oct. 30, 2006, 

 6

 The solicitation did not require the Navy to search CPARS for relevant past 

performance for SIMMEC. It only provides that the agency “may” verify an offeror’s 

past performance through sources such as CPARS. AR, Tab 1, Combined 

Synopsis/ Solicitation at 2. 
Page 6 B-406819 

2006 CPD ¶ 157 at 4; see also AC Technologies, Inc., B-293013, B-293013.2, 

Jan. 14, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 26 at 3 (in the absence of any prohibition in the 

solicitation, agency properly evaluated and gave weight to past performance of 

proposed subcontractor). In this regard, Federal Acquisition Regulation 

§ 15.305(a)(2)(iii) provides that an agency’s past performance evaluation “should 

take into account past performance [of] . . . subcontractors that will perform major or 

critical aspects of the requirement.”

SIMMEC also complains that TQS did not provide required certifications in its 

proposal. A provision, such as that in the solicitation here, that requires a contractor 

to obtain necessary certifications and licenses establishes performance 

requirements that must be satisfied by the successful offeror during contract 

performance.7 Therefore, offerors are not required to satisfy the requirements as a 

precondition to award, and the requirements do not affect the award decision, 

except as a matter of a contractor’s general responsibility. See Chem-Spray-South, 

Inc., B-400928.2, June 25, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 144 at 5; United Segurança, Ltda., 

B-294388, Oct. 21, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 207 at 4. We generally do not review 

affirmative determinations of responsibility, except in circumstances not alleged or 

demonstrated here. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c) (2012). Moreover, because TQS is a small 

business, any issue concerning the awardee’s responsibility is a matter for the 

Small Business Administration under its certificate of competency program. 

Ultimately, whether TQS complies with the certification and license requirements is 

a matter of contract administration, which we do not review. 4 C.F.R § 21.5(a) 

(2012).

We deny the protest.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 7

 As noted above, the solicitation provided that ‘[t]he contractor shall also have a 

valid AAALAC certification and USDA license.” AR, Tab 1, Combined 

Synopsis/Solicitation, at 2. Here, TQS represented in its proposal that its 

subcontractor had the required certifications and licenses and that TQS was 

obtaining them. See AR, Tab 5, TQS Proposal, at 4.