Facility Services Management, Inc. Protest Denied: Insights and Implications for Future Bids
The recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision in the protest filed by Facility Services Management, Inc. (FSI) against the award of a contract to J&J Maintenance Inc. highlights critical aspects of how past performance evaluations are conducted in federal government contracts. The protest, centered around the evaluation of past performance for a contract related to operations and maintenance of medical facilities at the Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, provides essential insights for contractors navigating the competitive and complex world of federal contracting.
FSI’s protest was primarily based on the assertion that the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) had unreasonably evaluated J&J's past performance, particularly related to another contract in Korea. FSI contended that the Corps had failed to account for adverse past performance information, specifically involving allegations of criminal conduct by J&J Korea, a subcontractor majority-owned by J&J. According to FSI, J&J Korea's alleged involvement in rigged bids and fraudulent pricing for subcontracted work in Korea should have negatively impacted the evaluation of J&J’s past performance on the new contract in Georgia. However, the GAO ultimately sided with the Corps, determining that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.
The Corps had originally awarded the contract to J&J in December 2023, prompting an earlier protest from FSI. That protest led the Corps to take corrective action by reconsidering J&J's performance in light of FSI’s concerns about J&J's Korea Delivery Order. After this reevaluation, the Corps still concluded that J&J’s proposal provided the best value, with both FSI and J&J receiving "substantial confidence" ratings for past performance and comparable ratings in other non-price factors. J&J, however, had proposed a lower price, giving them the advantage in the final decision.
One of the main takeaways from this case is the role of discretion in how agencies evaluate past performance. The GAO reiterated that an agency's evaluation of past performance is inherently subjective and will not be overturned unless it is unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation’s stated criteria. In this instance, the Corps based its evaluation of J&J’s past performance on CPARS ratings, which reflected satisfactory and very good assessments of J&J’s performance. Despite the alleged criminal issues involving J&J Korea, the Corps found no evidence that these issues had affected J&J's ability to perform its obligations under the contract.
This decision highlights that past performance evaluations are not solely based on isolated incidents or alleged subcontractor misconduct unless it demonstrably impacts contract performance. The Corps’ reliance on CPARS ratings and their thorough review of J&J’s performance, including the relevant work on the Korea Delivery Order, led to their confidence that J&J would successfully perform under the new contract in Georgia.
The GAO also emphasized that disagreement with an agency’s evaluation does not equate to unreasonableness. While FSI clearly disagreed with the Corps' assessment of J&J’s past performance, the GAO found that the evaluation aligned with the solicitation’s guidelines and that the Corps had reasonably considered all relevant information, including the criminal case.
Another important implication for contractors is the need to submit relevant, recent, and quality past performance references. J&J’s success in maintaining its "substantial confidence" rating despite the protest demonstrates how strong, verifiable past performance can outweigh peripheral issues. Moreover, the decision underscores the importance of price as a factor in best-value tradeoff decisions. Even though both FSI and J&J had similar non-price ratings, J&J’s lower price gave it a competitive edge. Contractors must carefully balance price with the quality of their proposals to remain competitive, especially in situations where non-price factors are comparable.
The content on this site, including articles, posts, images, and logos, is protected by copyright and intellectual property laws and is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be considered legal advice. Laws and regulations may vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. For legal advice, consult with a qualified attorney or legal professional.