CSR, Inc., B-413973 et al. (Jan. 13, 2017) involves the protest of Department of Justice’s evaluation and award of a blanket purchase agreement to Booz Allen Hamilton. The BPA solicitation allowed offerors to submit up to nine past performance examples. The RFP stated that the DOJ could supplement this information with “data obtained from other sources, including, but not limited to, other DOJ and OJP contracts and information from Government repositories.” CSR (the protester) submitted six past performance examples – three of them were for task orders involving similar services previously performed for the agency.
Booz Allen was given an exceptional rating while CSR received an acceptable rating. CSR filed a GAO bid protest, alleging that these ratings were caused by DOJ’s unequal treatment of the offerors.
CSR stated that DOJ only considered CPARs for CSR’s submitted past performance examples but considered Booz Allen’s CPAR ratings for past performance projects that were not identified in their proposal. CSR believed that if DOJ had considered CPARs for its other projects (like they did for Booz Allen), their past performance score would have been higher.
GAO agreed that the past performance evaluation was unequal. GAO stated that they do not usually question an agency’s decision to limit its review of past performance information. However, to ensure fairness across the process, offerors should be evaluated on an equal basis and the evaluation must be consistent with the solicitation’s terms. GAO wrote:
“The agency’s evaluation of CSR’s past performance was based on only the most recent CPARs for those specific projects identified by the vendor in its quotation. However, when evaluating BAH’s past performance, the agency considered CPARs for other than the specific projects that BAH had identified in its quotation. Quite simply, to the extent that the agency’s past performance evaluation of BAH considered CPARs for other than the projects specifically referenced by the awardee in its quotation, the agency was required to do the same when evaluating CSR’s past performance. As the agency was required to treat vendors equally and evaluate past performance evenhandedly, and failed to do so here, the agency’s actions were disparate and unreasonable”
As a result, GAO sustained CSR’s protest.
It’s important to note this decision if you submit an offer and your past performance is found to be less successful than the awardee, you need to ensure that you were treated fairly and that all past performance was considered and rated accordingly.