United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: NSR Solutions, Inc. 

File: B-406894 

Date: September 20, 2012 

Janice Davis, Esq., Davis & Steele, for the protester. 

Christopher S. Cole, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. 

Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that the protester is entitled to a higher past performance rating is denied 

where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with solicitation’s 

evaluation criteria. 

DECISION 

NSR Solutions, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to JDD, 

Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA9301-11-R-0006, 

issued by the Department of the Air Force for custodial services. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The solicitation, issued as an historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) 

set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinitequantity contract for five years (with a 6-month option period) for base-wide 

custodial services at Edwards Air Force Base and the Air Force Research 

Laboratory. The contractor will provide all management, tools, equipment and labor 

to perform custodial services at over 250 facilities totaling more than 2 million 

square feet. RFP amend. 4, Performance Work Statement, appendix B. 

The RFP advised that award would be made to the offeror with the lowest-priced, 

technically acceptable proposal that had received a past performance rating of 

substantial confidence. Id. at 16. If the lowest-priced, technically acceptable 

proposal did not receive a “substantial confidence” past performance rating, the 

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-406894

agency would continue to evaluate proposals (from the next lowest-priced proposal) 

until a technically acceptable proposal received a substantial confidence rating. Id. 

The source selection authority (SSA) would then consider which proposal reflected 

the best value, considering past performance and price. Id.

In this regard, the RFP identified the following evaluation factors: price, technical 

acceptability, and past performance. RFP amend. 2, at 11. Offerors were informed 

that proposals would be evaluated under the technical acceptability factor on a 

pass/fail basis, and that the past performance factor was approximately equal in 

weight to price. Id. 

The RFP stated that the agency would first rank all offers by total price, which would 

be calculated by multiplying unit prices by estimated quantities and adding together 

all the resulting prices. Id. Next, the Air Force would evaluate offerors’ proposals 

under the technical acceptability factor on a pass/fail basis. Id. The Air Force 

would then evaluate past performance. With regard to past performance, offerors 

were required to submit information for no more than four contracts for the prime 

offeror, and no more than two for each major or critical subcontractor. RFP amend. 

5, at 70. Firms were also required to send past performance questionnaires to their 

references, which were to submit the completed questionnaires to the agency. Id.

at 71; Contracting Officer’s Statement at 14. The RFP further advised offerors that 

the agency may obtain past performance information from the Contractor 

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with program 

managers and contracting officers, and other sources. RFP amend. 2, at 11-12. 

The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate this information for recency and 

relevance.1 With regard to relevance, offerors were informed that the agency would 

assess the contracts, considering, in descending order of importance, the contract’s 

scope of work, magnitude/complexity, type, and environment (e.g., Air Force 

installation, NASA installation, etc.).2

 Id. at 15. For each of these considerations, 

the RFP defined what would be considered “very relevant,” “relevant,” “somewhat 

relevant,” or “not relevant.” Id. at 12. For example, with respect to 

magnitude/complexity, a “very relevant” contract was defined to be one that 

provided for routine custodial service for over 250 facilities consisting of more than 

 

1

 Recent contracts were those that were completed within the last 3 years from the 

date the RFP was issued or were “currently being performed within 12 months” of 

that date. RFP amend. 2, at 12. 

2

 The RFP also provided that the agency would consider the contract value in 

determining relevance. A “very relevant” contract was defined as having a value 

greater than $1.5 million annually, a “relevant” contract would have a value between 

$1-1.5 million annually, and a “somewhat relevant” contract would have a value 

between $700 - $999 thousand annually. RFP amend. 2, at 12. 
Page 3 B-406894

2 million square feet on a weekly basis; a “relevant” contract provided such service 

for 150 to 250 facilities of 1.5 million to 2 million square feet; and a “somewhat 

relevant” contract provided service for 100 to 150 facilities consisting of 1 million to 

1.5 million square feet. Id.

Offerors were informed that the agency’s past performance evaluation would 

assess the offeror’s performance risk and assign a rating of substantial confidence, 

satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence 

based upon the government’s confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully 

performing the contract.3

 Id. at 14-15. In this regard, the RFP provided that the 

agency may assign greater weight to information from contracts deemed most 

relevant. Id. at 16. 

The agency received 11 proposals, including NSR’s and JDD’s. NSR proposed a 

teaming arrangement with Integrity National Corporation, Inc. (INC), and identified 

three contracts for its past performance: two that INC performed and one that NSR 

and INC performed together as a joint venture at Lackland Air Force Base (AFB). 

The three lowest-priced proposals were evaluated as follows: 

 Technically

Acceptable 

Past

 Performance Price 

NSR Yes Limited Confidence $9,873,822 

Building Solutions, Inc. Yes Satisfactory Confidence $10,115,232 

JDD Yes Substantial Confidence $10,140,765 

Agency Report (AR), Tab 22, Source Selection Decision Briefing, at 20, 22, 29, 33, 

41, 43, 48. 

NSR’s limited confidence past performance rating reflected the judgment of the 

agency’s performance confidence assessment group (PCAG) that, although NSR 

identified very relevant contracts for itself and INC, the agency had concerns with 

the contractor’s quality of work. See AR, Tab 20, NSR Consensus Past 

Performance Evaluation, at 3. The PCAG based its evaluation upon two 

questionnaires that the agency received for NSR’s three identified contracts (one 

questionnaire was for the contract that NSR and INC performed as a joint venture at 

 

3

 Substantial confidence indicated that the agency had a high expectation that the 

offeror would successfully perform the required effort; satisfactory confidence 

indicated that the agency had an expectation that the offeror will successfully 

perform; and limited confidence indicated that the agency had a low expectation of 

successful performance. RFP amend. 2, at 15. 
Page 4 B-406894

Lackland AFB and the other was for the contract performed by INC).4 The 

evaluation also relied upon three contracts for which the Air Force found information 

in the CPARS for INC. Id. at 2-3. The PCAG’s concern with the quality of the 

protester’s past performance was based upon negative past performance 

information the agency received with respect to the NSR/INC joint venture’s 

performance of the contract at Lackland AFB and upon marginal ratings in the 

CPARS for two other contracts. 

With regard to the joint venture’s Lackland AFB contract, the PCAG received an 

initial questionnaire response that rated the joint venture as marginal for its 

effectiveness of quality control procedures. Specifically, Lackland AFB indicated 

that, for this 6-month contract, the joint venture had unacceptable quality control 

procedures for April and May of 2011, and marginal quality control procedures for 

June. AR, Tab 15, NSR Past Performance Evaluation, at 23. The Air Force asked 

NSR to address this negative past performance information. NSR disagreed that it 

had marginal performance, stating that the joint venture’s overall performance rating 

for April and May was satisfactory and that there must have been a discrepancy in 

the information provided to the PCAG. AR, Tab 20, NSR Consensus Past 

Performance Evaluation, at 14. 

In response, the Air Force obtained a revised questionnaire from Lackland AFB, 

which changed the joint venture’s marginal rating for quality control procedures to 

satisfactory and stated that the joint venture’s overall performance was satisfactory. 

The narrative, however, continued to indicate that the joint venture’s quality control 

procedures were “unacceptable” for the months of April and May, but, that the 

protester was “overall satisfactory for both months.” Id. at 18-20. The PCAG then 

contacted Lackland AFB personnel regarding this contract, and was informed that 

the joint venture had performed satisfactorily overall but had “quality and 

performance issues at the CDCs (child development centers)” and that the “main 

performance issues were in the child development centers and fitness centers.” 

See AR, Tab 15, NSR Past Performance, at 10, 13. The PCAG was also informed 

that the joint venture required “quite a bit of government oversight.” Id. at 10. The 

evaluators concluded that Lackland AFB’s revised questionnaire and further 

explanation did not alleviate their concerns about the joint venture’s past 

performance. AR, Tab 20, NSR Consensus Past Performance Evaluation, at 3. 

With regard to INC’s contracts that the Air Force reviewed in the CPARS, the 

agency found that, for Contract No. N40085-06-D-4250 (which concerned INC’s 

performance for the Department of the Navy), INC had received marginal ratings for 

schedule and key personnel management areas. AR, Tab 20, NSR Consensus 

Past Performance Evaluation, at 3. The CPARS also included a statement from the 

 

4

 The agency did not receive a past performance questionnaire for one of the two 

contracts INC performed. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 14. 
Page 5 B-406894

contracting officer that the agency would “probably not” award to the company 

again. In addition, the contracting officer for this contract advised the PCAG that 

INC’s “quality of work had decreased in the last year of the contract and [the CO] 

believed upper management was unresponsive to concerns. . . .which contributed 

to the poor quality provided by the contractor.” AR, Tab 20, NSR Consensus Past 

Performance Evaluation, at 25. The agency also reviewed INC’s Contract No. 

GS07P05UBC0002 (which concerned INC’s performance of custodial services for 

the General Services Administration (GSA)). The CPARS again contained a 

marginal rating--this time for INC’s commitment to customer satisfaction. Id. at 3. 

The PCAG also contacted the contracting officer for this contract and was informed 

that INC’s performance was satisfactory. Id. at 30. The PCAG concluded based 

upon this information, and the information that it received from Lackland AFB, that it 

had a low expectation that the protester would successfully perform the contract. 

In contrast, JDD’s substantial confidence past performance rating reflected the 

PCAG’s determination that JDD had submitted contracts for itself and its team that 

were very relevant in scope, and that the questionnaires it received for JDD’s 

performance (two for JDD and two for its subcontractor) reflected overall good and 

excellent performance. See AR, Tab 17, JDD Past Performance Evaluation, at 3. 

Because the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal (NSR’s) did not receive 

a substantial confidence rating, the SSA performed a cost/technical tradeoff 

analysis to determine which proposal reflected the best value to the agency. The 

SSA received a briefing that detailed the PCAG’s past performance evaluation. AR, 

Tab 22, Source Selection Decision Briefing. The SSA concluded that JDD’s higher 

past performance rating reflected a better value to the agency than NSR’s limited 

confidence rating. AR, Tab 23, Source Selection Decision, at 4. In this regard, the 

SSA specifically recognized that, although NSR had received an overall satisfactory 

rating for the joint venture’s performance at Lackland AFB, the joint venture had 

required “quite a bit of Government oversight.” Id. The SSA concluded that JDD’s 

higher, substantial confidence past performance rating outweighed NSR’s $267,000 

price advantage. Id.

Award was made to JDD, and this protest followed. 

DISCUSSION 

NSR objects to the agency’s evaluation of its past performance, arguing that it 

should have received higher than a “limited confidence” rating.5 In this regard, NSR 

 

5

 NSR raises numerous objections to the agency’s past performance evaluation. 

We have considered all of the protester’s arguments--although we specifically 

address only the principal ones--and find that they provide no basis to sustain the 

protest. 
Page 6 B-406894

contends that the Air Force’s reliance on negative information concerning the joint 

venture’s contract at Lackland AFB was unreasonable, where the joint venture was 

found to have satisfactory performance overall. NSR also complains that the 

Air Force failed to consider positive past performance information contained in the 

CPARS for NSR and/or INC, and improperly considered negative performance 

information related to contracts not relevant to the work here. 

 

The evaluation of an offeror’s past performance is a matter of agency discretion, 

which we will not find improper unless unreasonable or inconsistent with the 

solicitation’s evaluation criteria, National Beef Packing Co., B-296534, Sept. 1, 

2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 168 at 4; Command Enters., Inc., B-293754, June 7, 2004, 2004 

CPD ¶ 166 at 4, nor will we substitute our judgment for reasonably based evaluation 

ratings. MFM Lamey Group, LLC, B-402377, Mar. 25, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 81 at 10. 

An offeror’s mere disagreement with an agency’s evaluation judgments does not 

demonstrate that those judgments are unreasonable. FN Mfg., LLC, B-402059.4, 

B-402059.5, Mar. 22, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 104 at 7. 

Here, the record shows that the Air Force’s evaluation of NSR’s past performance 

was reasonable. With respect to the NSR/INC joint venture’s performance at 

Lackland AFB, the Air Force received information from questionnaire responses and 

Lackland AFB personnel that indicated that the joint venture had marginal or 

unacceptable quality control for half of the contract term. See AR, Tab 15, NSR 

Past Performance Evaluation, at 23. Although the second questionnaire rated the 

joint venture’s quality control performance as satisfactory overall, that questionnaire 

continued to indicate the joint venture’s performance problems in specific areas. 

Moreover, the personnel at Lackland AFB informed the agency, after receipt of the 

second questionnaire response, that the joint venture had performance problems on 

this contract and required significant government supervision. Although NSR 

disagrees that it had performance problems, it does not show that any of this 

information is in error.6

NSR also complains that the agency considered negative past performance 

information the agency found in the CPARS for two contracts that INC performed, 

where the agency itself found that these contracts were “not relevant” under at least 

one of the considerations established by the RFP for determining relevancy. 

Specifically, NSR notes that Contract No. -4250 (INC’s contract with the Navy) was 

found to be not relevant under the magnitude/complexity and contract value 

 

6

 NSR also argues that the CPARS shows satisfactory performance for this 

contract, which the agency did not consider. Given the past performance concerns 

that the agency received from the questionnaire responses, and directly from 

Lackland AFB personnel, we do not see how the CPARS information would 

alleviate the agency’s concerns with NSR’s past performance. 
Page 7 B-406894

considerations,7 and that Contract No. -0002 (INC’s contract with GSA) was found 

to be not relevant under the magnitude/complexity consideration.8

 AR, Tab 20, 

Past Performance Recency and Relevancy Worksheet, at 9, 10. 

We do not agree that the Air Force could not consider these contracts in its past 

performance evaluation. In this regard, the RFP did not state that the agency would 

only consider contracts to be relevant if they were deemed to be at least “somewhat 

relevant” under every relevancy consideration. Rather, the RFP provided for an 

integrated assessment of a contract’s relevancy, and stated an order of importance 

for these considerations. Here, the PCAG found the contracts relevant considering 

all of the stated considerations, and in particular considering the most important 

“scope of work” consideration. Although NSR disagrees with this judgment, it does 

not show it to be unreasonable.9

NSR also complains that the Air Force in its review of the CPARS failed to credit 

NSR for other, positive, CPARS evaluations. In this regard, NSR identifies in its 

protest CPARS evaluations for three other contracts that NSR believes the agency 

should have considered. The contracting officer explains that he searched for the 

CPARS for relevant contracts for NSR, INC, and NSR/INC joint venture by cage 

codes and contractor names, and states that he did not find any other relevant 

CPARS evaluations. See Contracting Officer’s Statement at 18. The record 

provides no basis to question the contracting officer’s statement in this regard. In 

any event, we find no merit to this complaint, given the past performance concerns 

that were otherwise identified for NSR. 

 

Finally, NSR challenges the Air Force’s evaluation of JDD’s past performance, 

arguing that the Air Force did not consider negative comments contained in one of 

JDD’s CPARS evaluations, and did not give sufficient weight to an unsatisfactory 

rating received on a questionnaire response for JDD’s subcontractor. The Air Force 

responds that it did consider this information in its evaluation. The agency first 

 

7

 This contract was for custodial services at three buildings comprising 157,253 

square feet, and had a value of $523,841 annually. AR, Tab 20, Past Performance 

Recency and Relevancy Worksheet, at 10. 

8

 This contract was for custodial services at three buildings with 7,311,400 square 

feet. AR, Tab 20, Past Performance Recency and Relevancy Worksheet, at 10. 

9

 NSR also disagrees with the agency’s judgment that INC had performance 

problems under Contract No. -0002, where the contracting officer for that contract 

stated that INC’s performance was “satisfactory.” This does not show that the 

agency unreasonably assessed the import of INC’s negative performance ratings 

for specific areas under this contract (such as, INC marginal rating for commitment 

to customer satisfaction). 
Page 8 B-406894

explains that, with regard to the CPARS negative comments for one of JDD’s 

contracts, the agency also received a questionnaire response from the contracting 

officer who completed the CPARS evaluation, and he indicated that there were not 

any performance problems. The agency placed more weight on the recent 

questionnaire response. 2nd Legal Memorandum at 5. With regard to the 

subcontractor’s unsatisfactory rating, the record shows that, after receiving the 

questionnaire response, the Air Force contacted the individual who completed the 

questionnaire and learned that the rating related to performance problems at the 

start of the contract that were not solely the subcontractor’s fault. The PCAG did 

not view this negative past performance information as significant, given this 

explanation. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 14. We find nothing unreasonable 

about the agency’s conclusions in this regard. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel