United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: ProLog, Inc.

File: B-405051

Date: August 3, 2011

David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and William J. Bainbridge, Esq., Cohen 

Mohr LLP, for the protester.

William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the intervenor.

Col. Mark S. Teskey, Christopher S. Cole, Esq., and Amanda M. Willis, Esq., 

Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency’s evaluation of protester’s past performance is reasonable, where the 

agency reasonably determined that only 1 of 10 evaluated contracts was very 

relevant and, although performance on that contract was exceptional, the offeror’s 

lack of very relevant performance warranted only a satisfactory confidence rating.

2. Protester’s challenge to the past performance evaluation of the awardee’s past 

performance is dismissed, where protester would not be next in line for award even 

if its protest were sustained.

DECISION

ProLog, Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Bering 

Straits Logistics Services, LLC, (BSLS), of Anchorage, Alaska, under request for 

proposals (RFP) No. FA3002-10-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Air Force 

for supply and transportation services. ProLog challenges the past performance 

evaluation. 

We deny in part, and dismiss in part, the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, which was set-aside for section 8(a) small businesses, provided for the 

award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a 45-day mobilization period, followed by 

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-405051

a 3-month base period and 4 option years.1 RFP at 136-38; RFP amend. 5. 

A detailed performance work statement (PWS), included with the RFP, described 

contract requirements for a broad range of supply and transportation services to 

support Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida. RFP amend. 4, PWS, § 23.1.1. 

The RFP provided that award would be made based on the following factors: 

mission capability, price, and past performance. RFP amend. 6, at 149-55. The 

RFP stated that the agency would rank proposals by total evaluated price and make 

award to the offeror who submitted the lowest reasonably-priced, technically 

acceptable proposal with a substantial confidence past performance rating. If no 

technically acceptable proposals received a substantial confidence rating, then 

award would be made on a best value basis. Id. at 154-55.

With regard to past performance, the evaluation of which is protested here, offerors 

were required to submit information on no more than seven contracts performed 

within 3 years of the RFP’s issuance date that the offeror considered relevant to 

demonstrating its ability to perform the requirements. Id. at 143. Offerors were to 

provide past performance questionnaires to each point of contact for the listed 

contracts, and these references were to complete the questionnaire and return it 

directly to the agency for evaluation. Id. at 145. The RFP stated that the agency 

would consider the information provided in the proposal and past performance 

questionnaires, as well as information obtained from other sources.2

 Id. at 144, 152. 

Section M of the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate past performance 

as an indicator of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. Id. at 151. 

This evaluation was to include consideration of recency (defined as contracts that 

were performed within the 3 years preceding the RFP’s issuance); relevancy 

(defined as contracts that were similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and 

complexity than the effort here)3

 1 The estimated dollar value for this procurement was $45,350,000. Agency Report 

(AR), Tab 5, Source Selection Plan, attach. 2, Market Research Report, at 1.

; and performance information (including an offeror’s 

2

 The RFP also provided that the agency would consider the past performance of 

predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform “major 

or critical aspects of the requirement,” as well as past performance of affiliated 

companies where “the resources . . . of the affiliated [company] will meaningfully 

affect performance of the instant acquisition.” RFP amend. 6, at 152.

3 The RFP stated that the agency would assign proposals relevancy ratings of very 

relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant. As pertinent here, a very 

relevant rating reflected an effort involving essentially the same magnitude of effort 

and complexities as the requirement; a relevant rating reflected an effort involving 

much of the magnitude of effort and complexity; a somewhat relevant rating reflected 

an effort that involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexity; and a not 

(continued...)
Page 3 B-405051

history of forecasting and controlling costs, and history of performance problems).4 

Id. at 153. The RFP stated that the agency would integrate its assessment of 

recency, relevancy, and performance of each offeror’s efforts into an overall 

confidence rating of substantial, satisfactory, limited, no, or unknown confidence.5

The agency received six proposals, including those of ProLog and BSLS. 

Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 7. As pertinent here, ProLog identified five 

contracts that it performed: a support contract for the Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) from 2006 to 2011 ($24,579,206); a support contract for the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from 2007 to 2011 ($2,923,677); 

and three support contracts at Norfolk Naval Shipyard for various periods between 

2006 and 2010 ($7,739,624; $1,435,832; and $2,863,154, respectively). In addition, 

ProLog identified three contracts performed by its proposed subcontractor, 

[DELETED]: an installation support contract [DELETED] from 2002 to 2012 

[DELETED]; a hazardous material pharmacy and waste management contract 

[DELETED] from 2008 to 2012 [DELETED]; and a support contract [DELETED] from 

2009 to 2012 [DELETED].

6

 Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, ProLog’s Past 

Performance Proposal, at 2-29; Tab 31, Performance Confidence Assessment 

Group (PCAG) Report, at 69.

The PCAG evaluated offeror’s past performance by considering the information 

in the offerors’ proposals, the questionnaires submitted by offerors’ references, 

interviews with references, and information available from Contractor Performance 

Assessment Reports (CPAR).7

 

(...continued)

relevant rating reflected an effort that did not involve any of the magnitude of effort 

and complexities. RFP amend. 6, at 152. 

 AR, Tab 31, PCAG Report, at 5-6. The PCAG 

4 The RFP stated that the agency would assign proposals performance ratings of 

exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory, or not applicable (NA) 

where none were available. See RFP amend. 6, at 153.

5 As pertinent here, the RFP defined substantial confidence as the government 

having a high expectation that the offeror would successfully perform the work, and 

satisfactory confidence as the government having an expectation that the offeror 

would successfully perform the work. RFP amend. 6, at 154.

6 The agency did not consider this last contract in the evaluation because it 

exceeded the number of contracts that the offeror was permitted to identify in its 

proposal. AR, Tab 31, PCAG Report, at 58. 

7 From its search of the CPAR database, the agency found and evaluated three 

additional contracts performed by ProLog: one clerical support contract for the Navy 

Field Service Office in Tucson, Arizona, from 2009 through 2010 ($171,000); and 

(continued...)
Page 4 B-405051

looked at the performance period of the contract, the contract type and value, and 

the tasks performed under the contract to assess recency and relevancy. The 

PCAG looked to the questionnaires and CPAR ratings to assess performance. 

ProLog’s past performance ratings were as follows:

ProLog/Chenega Relevance Questionnaire 

Overall Rating

CPAR Rating 

Range

MARAD (ProLog) Somewhat Relevant Exceptional Outstanding8

NOAA (ProLog) Somewhat Relevant Satisfactory N/A

Norfolk ($7M) (ProLog) Somewhat Relevant Exceptional N/A

Norfolk ($3.4M) (ProLog) Somewhat Relevant Exceptional N/A

Norfolk ($2.8M) (ProLog) Somewhat Relevant Exceptional N/A

[DELETED] Very Relevant Exceptional N/A

[DELETED] Somewhat Relevant Exceptional Satisfactory

Tucson (ProLog) Not Relevant N/A N/A

Norfolk ($124K) (ProLog) Not Relevant N/A N/A

Norfolk ($171K) (ProLog) Not Relevant N/A N/A

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE: SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE

AR, Tab 31, PCAG Report, at 56, 69.

The PCAG found that ProLog identified only one very relevant contract--performed 

not by ProLog, but by its proposed subcontractor--that was similar in size, scope, 

and complexity to the PWS. Id. at 58. Specifically, the PCAG found that 

[DELETED] contract included some of the supply functions and essentially all of the 

transportation functions that were very relevant to the solicited requirement, was of 

far greater magnitude than the solicited requirement, and [DELETED] performance 

under the contract was exceptional. Id.

 

(...continued)

two support contracts at Norfolk, Virginia, for periods between 2007 to 2011 

($124,000 and $890,000, respectively). AR, Tab 31, PCAG Report, at 65-66.

at 58, 66-67. The remaining contracts were 

deemed only somewhat relevant or not relevant as they were not of the same or 

similar size, scope, or complexity as compared to the requirements here. Although 

the PCAG reported that it received no detrimental feedback about the quality of 

ProLog’s or [DELETED] performance on the remaining contracts, and acknowledged 

that ProLog received high performance ratings from its references, the lack of very 

relevant contracts resulted in an overall performance confidence rating of only 

8 MARAD used a different performance rating scale in its CPAR with “outstanding” 

reflecting the highest possible rating. Supp. AR, ProLog CPARs & Questionnaires, 

at 9; see AR, Tab 31, PCAG Report, at 60.
Page 5 B-405051

satisfactory. Id. at 58. That is, the PCAG concluded that ProLog would successfully 

perform the required effort. Id.

The PCAG provided its findings to the source selection evaluation team (SSET), 

who considered the past performance findings along with mission capability and 

price. The SSET agreed with the PCAG’s past performance assessment of 

satisfactory confidence for ProLog’s proposal, and found the proposal to be 

acceptable under the mission capability factor, which was the only technical factor. 

AR, Tab 32, Performance Analysis Report (PAR), at 128-31. The SSET also 

determined that the remaining five proposals evaluated were technically acceptable, 

and that three of those proposals (including BSLS’s) warranted substantial 

confidence past performance ratings. Id. at 130-31. 

In accordance with the RFP, the SSET ranked technically acceptable offers 

according to price, and eliminated the lowest-priced offer with a substantial 

confidence rating from further consideration because it was determined that the 

firm was not an 8(a) small business. The SSET determined that the next 

lowest-priced offer with a substantial confidence rating was submitted by BSLS, 

and recommended that firm for award to the source selection authority (SSA).9

 

The SSA agreed with the SSET’s recommendation and selected BSLS for award. 

AR, Tab 34, Source Selection Decision, at 5-6. 

After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, ProLog filed this protest. 

Performance of the contract has been suspended pending our decision.

DISCUSSION

ProLog protests the agency’s evaluation of past performance in its proposal. It 

contends that its proposal should have been rated higher than BSLS’s under the 

past performance factor, and because it was not, the evaluation was unreasonable 

and unequal. ProLog also contends that the agency failed to conduct meaningful 

discussions with regard to past performance concerns. 

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, our Office examines 

the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in 

accord with the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. See, e.g., TPL, Inc., 

B-297136.10, B-297136.11, June 29, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 104 at 10. An agency’s 

evaluation of past performance, which includes its consideration of the relevance, 

scope, and significance 

 9 One other offeror’s proposal (not ProLog) received a substantial confidence rating, 

but it was higher in price than BSLS’s proposal. AR, Tab 32, PAR, at 130-31.

of an offeror’s performance history, as well as consideration 
Page 6 B-405051

of actions taken to resolve prior problems, 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. In 

short, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency, and a protester’s 

mere disagreement with such judgment does not provide a basis to sustain a 

protest. Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 2000, 2000 CPD 

¶129 at 5.

We have reviewed the evaluation of ProLog’s past performance and find, based on 

the record, that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the RFP’s 

stated evaluation criteria, and fair. In this regard, of the 10 contracts evaluated, 

only 1 was very relevant, 6 were somewhat relevant, and 3 were not relevant. The 

very relevant contract was performed by ProLog’s proposed subcontractor 

[DELETED]; but, as the agency noted, ProLog itself had not performed contracts 

that were of similar scope or magnitude. For example, the MARAD contract was 

close in magnitude ($24.5 million) and included some of the required services, but 

it did not include all transportation functions10; the other contracts performed by 

ProLog were of much smaller dollar values and therefore were not of similar 

magnitude. The agency recognized that ProLog’s and [DELETED] performance 

ratings ranged from satisfactory to exceptional and outstanding, but given ProLog’s 

lack of very relevant experience, the agency only had confidence (not high 

confidence) that the offeror would successfully perform. Accordingly, the proposal 

was rated satisfactory and not substantial confidence. AR, Tab 31, PCAG Report, 

at 57-58, 100-01; Tab 32, PAR, at 129; Tab 34, Source Selection Decision, at 4. 

Although ProLog disagrees with the agency’s evaluation judgments, it has not 

shown them to be unreasonable.11

 10 Although ProLog contends that transportation services are included, it did not 

identify them in its proposal, and the questionnaire states that passenger 

transportation services were not performed. See AR, Tab 17, ProLog’s Past 

Performance Proposal, at 3-6; Supp. AR, ProLog CPARs & Questionnaires, at 6.

11 For example, ProLog asserts that the agency improperly downgraded its proposal 

because the firm’s past performance references were mostly for time-and-materials 

contracts, and not fixed-price contracts. ProLog asserts that consideration of 

whether contracts were fixed-price or time-and-materials constituted unstated 

evaluated criteria. Protest at 21-23; ProLog’s Comments (June 10, 2011) at 2-3. 

The record does not support that this was an important discriminator in the 

evaluation and, in any event, it was encompassed within the stated evaluation 

criteria. Specifically, the RFP provides that the agency will consider each offeror’s 

history of forecasting and controlling costs. RFP amend. 6, at 153; see, e.g., Master 

Lock Co., LLC, B-309982.3, Dec. 10, 2008, 2009 CPD ¶ 6 at 5-6 (denying protest 

(continued...)
Page 7 B-405051

ProLog next complains that it was entitled to meaningful discussions on “any 

concerns” the agency had about the relevance of its past performance. Protest 

at 23; ProLog’s Comments (June 10, 2011) at 4. However, when an agency 

conducts discussions, as it did here, the agency is not required to raise with each 

offeror every discriminator for award. See, e.g., PWC Logistics Servs., Inc., 

B-299820, Aug. 14, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 162 at 6. Rather, discussions need only be 

meaningful, that is, discussions must identify deficiencies, significant weaknesses, 

and adverse past performance to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity 

to respond. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.306(d)(3); Bank of Am., 

B-287608, B-287608.2, July 26, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 137 at 10-11 None of the 

agency’s evaluation conclusions about the relevance of ProLog or its subcontractor’s 

contracts rise to the level of a deficiency or significant weakness, and do not 

constitute adverse past performance information that must be raised during 

discussions. ProLog’s arguments in this respect do not provide a basis to sustain 

this protest. 

ProLog raises a myriad of other issues challenging the evaluation of BSLS’s past 

performance. We do not address these issues because ProLog is not an interested 

party to protest the past performance evaluation of BSLS. Under the bid protest 

provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3556 

(2006), only an “interested party” may protest a federal procurement. That is, a 

protester must be an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic 

interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a

contract. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1) (2011). A protester is not 

an interested party where it would not be in line for contract award were its protest to 

be sustained. Four Winds Servs., Inc., B-280714, Aug. 28, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 57.

As noted above, the RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror who 

submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer that was rated 

substantial confidence for past performance. Even if ProLog were successful in 

its protest challenging the substantial confidence rating given to BSLS’s proposal, 

ProLog would not be in line for award because its proposal was reasonably 

rated satisfactory confidence and because one other offeror, besides BSLS, 

 

(...continued)

alleging unstated evaluation criteria where issue was reasonably and logically 

encompassed within solicitation stated past performance criteria).
Page 8 B-405051

submitted a technically acceptable proposal that was rated substantial confidence, 

and that firm would be next in line for award.12

ProLog’s protest.

 Therefore, we dismiss this aspect of 

The protest is denied in part and dismissed in part.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 12 ProLog does not challenge the evaluation of the intervening offeror’s proposal.