(Editor’s Note.  The following indicates some interesting strategies available for proposing subcontractors and how they may be viewed in past performance ratings.)

SRI and MESI bid on a contract where “price”, “past performance” and “management approach” were weighted equally.  Both bidders were given “acceptable” past performance ratings.  SRI’s rating was based on its “satisfactory” performance on the incumbent contract with little weight given to its subcontractor who was slated to do 20% of the work while MESI’s rating was based primarily on its subcontractor and their subsidiary’s past performance work because (1) MESI had no relevant prior experience and (2) the subcontractor and its subsidiary would perform most of the work.

When MESI was awarded the contract based on its low price, SRI protested arguing the agency failed to adequately consider its subcontractor’s past performance while giving too much weight to MESI’s subcontractor.  The Comp. Gen. disagreed, noting FAR 15.305 authorizes an agency to consider a subcontractor’s past performance evaluation and the key consideration is whether the subcontractor’s experiences is “reasonably predictive” of the offeror’s performance.  Here the past performance evaluation properly focused on SRI since its subcontractor would perform only 20% of the work while the focus on MESI’s proposed subcontractor was appropriate since the subcontractor and its subsidiary were scheduled to perform significant portions of the work (Strategic Resources, Inc. Comp. Gen. Dec., B-287398).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}