United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: LOGMET LLC 

File: B-407061

Date: October 17, 2012

Wayne C. Rankin for the protester.

Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Brian F. Wilbourn, Esq., 

PilieroMazza PLLC, for B3 Solutions, LLC, an intervenor.

Christopher S. Cole, Esq., Col. Mark S. Teskey, and Capt. Laura Koths, Department 

of the Air Force, for the agency.

Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated offeror’s past performance is 

denied where the record shows that the protester did not adequately demonstrate 

relevant performance in all required areas, and the agency’s evaluation was 

reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

DECISION

LOGMET LLC, of Round Rock, Texas, protests the award of a contract to B3 

Solutions, LLC, of Jacksonville, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. FA9401-12-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Air Force, Air Force 

Nuclear Weapons and Counterproliferation Agency, for logistics materiel control 

activity (LMCA) services at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force 

Base, New Mexico. LOGMET argues that the agency’s evaluation of its past 

performance was improper.

We deny the protest.
Page 2 B-407061 

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on May 1, 2012 as a section 8(a) set-aside,1 contemplated the 

award without discussions of a fixed-price contract for a base year with four 1-year 

options. In general terms, the contractor was to provide the personnel, equipment, 

tools, materials, and other items necessary to perform the specified LMCA services. 

Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4. As relevant here, the PWS included 

information technology equipment (ITE) asset management and bench stock store 

functions.2 Id. at 17-19. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose 

proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government considering two 

evaluation factors: past performance and price. Past performance was significantly 

more important than price. RFP at 29.

With respect to past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to provide up to 

five references--with up to five pages on each reference--of contracts performed 

within the previous 3 years demonstrating relevant past performance. RFP at 121. 

The solicitation did not require that the past performance be with the Air Force or 

limited to LMCA contracts; rather, the RFP permitted offerors to reference contracts 

performed for federal agencies and commercial customers, including supply 

contracts, to demonstrate performance relevant to the RFP requirements. Id. The 

RFP, however, expressly cautioned offerors to provide sufficient information in their 

proposals to permit a meaningful assessment of their past performance. Id. at 32.

Eleven offerors, including LOGMET and B3 Solutions, submitted proposals by the 

June 8 closing date. LOGMET’s proposal included three past performance 

references: (1) its LMCA contract at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Ohio; 

(2) its base logistics services contract at Los Angeles AFB, California; and (3) its 

ammunition handler services contract at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma. Agency Report (AR), 

Tab 6, LOGMET Proposal, at 4-6. Notwithstanding the fact that the RFP permitted 

 1 Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 637(a) (2006), authorizes the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) to enter into contracts with government 

agencies and to arrange for performance through subcontracts with socially and 

economically disadvantaged small business concerns. Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) § 19.800(a). Department of Defense agencies have been 

delegated authority to enter into 8(a) contracts on behalf of the SBA. Department of 

Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) § 219.800(a).

2 A bench stock store, alternatively referred to as an office supply store, is a 

customer-owned store of low cost, high demand, consumable items (e.g., toner

cartridges). PWS at 18-19, 47; RFP at 128. To the extent LOGMET alleges any 

ambiguity or confusion about these two terms in the solicitation, see LOGMET 

Comments, Aug. 22, 2012, at 1-2, its protest is untimely. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) 

(2012).
Page 3 B-407061 

offerors to submit up to five pages per reference to demonstrate the relevance of 

their prior work, LOGMET submitted only a one-paragraph (approximately one-half

page) listing of the responsibilities and functions for each reference. Id.

An Air Force past performance evaluation team (PPET) evaluated offerors’ past 

performance using an adjectival rating system as set forth in the RFP: substantial 

confidence; satisfactory confidence; limited confidence; no confidence; and 

unknown confidence. Id., Tab 7, Past Performance Evaluation Report, at 2. As part 

of the overall assessment of past performance, the evaluators considered the 

relevance (very relevant; relevant; somewhat relevant; not relevant) and the quality 

of each reference. Id. at 2-15.

When evaluating LOGMET’s past performance, the PPET found the WrightPatterson AFB LMCA reference to be “relevant,” and the Los Angeles AFB and Ft. 

Sill references to be “somewhat relevant.” Id. at 10-11. As a preliminary matter, the 

evaluators found that although LOGMET provided a listing of its responsibilities for 

each reference, the lists were difficult to follow in terms of ascertaining how the 

contracts related to the PWS requirements here. Id. For example, with regard to

the Ft. Sill reference, the PPET concluded that the handling of munitions performed 

under that contract was not a function required of the PWS here, and that LOGMET 

had failed to provide enough detail about its other listed functions to ascertain their 

relevance. Id. at 11. Further, the PPET found that none of LOGMET’s references 

demonstrated a record of performance of the supply store or ITE asset 

management functions.3 Id., Tab 7, Past Performance Evaluation Report, at 10-11. 

As a result, the evaluators were unable to assess the offeror’s ability to perform 

these two PWS-required functions. Id. Based on the relevance and quality of the 

offeror’s references, the Air Force assigned LOGMET a past performance rating of 

satisfactory confidence. Id. at 12.

The final ratings and prices of the LOGMET and B3 Solutions proposals were as 

follows:

Factor LOGMET B3 Solutions

Past 

Performance

Satisfactory 

Confidence

Substantial 

Confidence

Price $4,062,299 $4,446,429

 3 The Air Force also confirmed as part of its evaluation that LOGMET’s LMCA 

contract at Wright-Patterson AFB did not include a supply store function. Id., 

Tab 14, Email from Wright-Patterson AFB Contracting Officer’s Representative to 

Procuring Contracting Officer, July 2, 2012.
Page 4 B-407061 

AR, Tab 7, Past Performance Evaluation Report, at 4, 12, 15. The Air Force 

subsequently selected B3’s proposal for contract award, and this protest followed.

DISCUSSION

LOGMET asserts that the agency’s evaluation of its past performance was 

unreasonable. The protester argues that the Air Force improperly concluded that 

the offeror did not have--or did not demonstrate--relevant supply store and ITE 

asset management experience. LOGMET contends that had the agency conducted 

a proper evaluation of its past performance, it would have received a higher, 

substantial confidence rating and would have been selected for contract award.4

Our Office will examine an agency’s evaluation of an offeror’s past performance 

only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation 

criteria and applicable statutes and regulations since determining the relative merit 

or relative relevance of an offeror’s past performance is primarily a matter within the 

agency’s discretion. TPMC-EnergySolutions Envtl. Servs., LLC, B-406183, Mar. 2, 

2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 135 at 11; Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-296176.2, Dec. 9, 

2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 222 at 3. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s 

judgment does not establish that an evaluation was improper. AT&T Corp.,

B-299542.3, B-299542.4, Nov. 16, 2007, 2008 CPD ¶ 65. Our review of the record 

leads us to conclude that the agency's past performance evaluation was 

unobjectionable.

As detailed above, the Air Force considered the relevance and quality of each 

LOGMET-provided reference when evaluating the offeror’s past performance. The 

PPET found, as a general matter, that LOGMET’s brief listing of the scope and 

responsibilities of each reference made it difficult to ascertain the relevance of these 

contracts to the PWS requirements here. Again, while the RFP provided offerors 

with up to five pages per contract reference to demonstrate the relevance of their 

prior efforts to the PWS requirements here, LOGMET elected to submit only a halfpage description in each instance. Further, the PPET found that none of 

 4 LOGMET also initially protested that the RFP did not require offerors to address 

each and every PWS function, and the agency’s consideration of supply store and 

ITE asset management experience constituted unstated evaluation criteria. Protest, 

July 23, 2012, at 19. The Air Force specifically addressed these aspects of the 

protest in its report to our Office, AR, Aug. 22, 2012, at 5-9, and LOGMET’s 

comments offered no rebuttal of the agency's position. See LOGMET Comments, 

Aug. 22, 2012, 1-4. Where, as here, an agency provides a detailed response to a 

protester’s assertion and the protester does not respond to the agency's position, 

we deem the issue to have been abandoned. See Emergent BioSolutions Inc., 

B-402576, June 8, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 136 at 10 n.11; Citrus College; KEI Pearson, 

Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 104 at 8 n.4. 
Page 5 B-407061 

LOGMET’s references demonstrated supply store and ITE asset management 

experience. As a result, the evaluators concluded that LOGMET’s past 

performance failed to demonstrate the offeror’s ability to perform these two PWSrequired functions, thereby resulting in assigning only a satisfactory confidence 

rating. 

We find the Air Force’s evaluation to be reasonable and consistent with the stated 

evaluation criteria. It is an offeror’s responsibility to provide adequate detail about 

its past performance to demonstrate the relevance of its prior experience. See

AIROD Sdn. Bhd., B-294127, Aug. 16, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 156 at 5 n.1; Interstate 

Gen. Gov’t Contractors, Inc., B-290137.2, June 21, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 105 at 5. In 

an exercise of its own business judgment, LOGMET submitted a proposal with a 

scant, half-page listing of the duties and functions of each reference although the 

RFP provided offerors with up to five pages per reference to demonstrate the 

relevance of their experience. As the evaluation record indicates, and our review of 

the firm’s proposal confirms, there is no discussion of either supply store or ITE 

asset management experience in any of LOGMET’s references. 

LOGMET does not dispute that its proposal failed to demonstrate both supply store 

and ITE asset management experience. Rather, the protester argues that because 

it is the LMCA contractor at Wright-Patterson AFB, and because all Air Force 

LMCAs are organized and operated in the same manner, the agency should have 

understood that it therefore possessed all required experience. Comments, 

Aug. 22, 2012, at 1-2. 

LOGMET’s argument here reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal

process. The RFP clearly established that it was an offeror’s responsibility for its 

proposal to demonstrate the relevance of its prior experience. The protester now

essentially argues that it did not need to comply with the solicitation instructions, 

and the mere statement that it was an LMCA contractor at another location was by 

itself sufficient to justify the highest past performance rating. If LOGMET was of the

opinion that LMCA contractors should not have been held to the submission 

requirements applicable to other offerors, it should have raised this challenge to the 

solicitation requirements before the closing date and time. See 4 C.F.R. 

¶ 21.2(a)(1).

Moreover, contrary to the protester’s assertion, it appears that not all LMCA 

contracts are the same. In this regard, the record here indicates that LOGMET’s 

LMCA contract at Wright-Patterson AFB in fact did not include a supply store 

function. Contracting Officer’s Statement, July 26, 2012, at 6; AR, Tab 7, Past 

Performance Evaluation Report, at 29 (past performance questionnaire indicating 

that the supply store function was not performed); Tab 14, Email from WrightPatterson AFB Contracting Officer’s Representative to Procuring Contracting Office, 

July 2, 2012 (“there is no office supply store”).

 
Page 6 B-407061 

In sum, given LOGMET’s lack of demonstrated relevant experience in significant 

PWS functions, we find no basis for concluding that the agency acted unreasonably 

in not assigning a higher rating than satisfactory confidence.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel