Opinion ID: 666055
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Volume V--Past Performance

Text: 132 Latecoere contends that Urban's rationalization for downplaying ETC's poor past performance record eviscerated the significance of past performance as an evaluation criteria. The Solicitation stated that, in evaluating past performance, the following would be considered as indicators of contractor-caused performance problems: receipt by the offeror of a cure notice, late deliveries, failure of delivered equipment to perform as specified, or other failures to perform. The Evaluation Board had awarded ETC a marginal rating on past performance because of three adverse actions initiated against it by other government agencies in the eighteen months preceding submission of the G-TIP proposals. Urban rejected this rating, reasoning that cure notices and late-deliveries were not convincing evidence that [ETC's] performance problems were solely contractor-caused. Once again, Urban ignored the express terms of the Solicitation, something he lacked the authority to do. To make matters worse, Urban went on to conclude, in contradiction to the Solicitation, that past performance was not relevant, because the Training Center would have to continuously supervise the G-TIP contractor's performance anyway and such supervision would ensure adequate performance by ETC regardless of its poor performance history. 133 The GAO opined that Urban's conclusion that the evidence of adverse actions against ETC did not support a marginal past performance rating was a reasoned judgment as to the actual risk posed by a prospective offeror. Wyle, 1990 WL 293722 at  9. Not so. Instead of making a reasoned judgment, Urban effectively scratched the past performance evaluation criteria out of the Solicitation based on the hope that constant government supervision would ensure proper performance. Instead of providing adequate support for his decision to equate the two proposals in regard to the offerors' past performance, Urban's rationale effectively changed the Solicitation's terms, a clear and prejudicial violation of procurement regulations. 134 Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we find Urban's stated rationale for awarding the contract to ETC to be inadequate. He failed to offer a rational basis consistent with the solicitation for any of the five major proposal volumes: Device Design; Facility Design; Management Plan; Integrated Logistics Support; or Past Performance. 10