kpearce

In the case where a small business has an active DoD approved Mentor-Prot?g? agreement in place with a large and established business, is it proper (legally acceptable) for the agency (CO) to evaluate the previous experience and past performance of the Mentor company when the Prot?g? is bidding as the prime contractor on the basis that the Mentor firm will be providing Developmental Assistance to the Prot?g? firm throughout the duration of the agreement? I ask this question within the context of the below GAO decision: ?In determining whether one company?s performance should be attributed to another, an agency must consider the nature and extent of the relationship between the two companies?in particular, whether the workforce, management, facilities, or other resources of one may affect contract performance by the other. In this regard, while it would be inappropriate to consider a company?s performance record where that record does not bear on the likelihood of successful performance by the offeror (or vendor), it would be appropriate to consider a company?s performance record where it will be involved in the contract effort or where it shares management with the offeror.? Lynwood Machinery & Engineering Inc., B-285696, September 18, 2000 Key points: -The two companies have specific developmental assistance authorized by the DoD intended to strengthen the Prot?g??s capabilities in order to successfully perform in the federal market. The developmental assistance is specifically intended to positively affect the contract performance of the Prot?g? firm. In this context, it can be reasonably concluded that ?the workforce, management, facilities, or other resources of one may affect contract performance by the other?. -DoD Mentor-Prot?g? program does not allow for Mentor-Prot?g? joint ventures, so the relationship must be a prime-subcontractor relationship in pursuing small business contracts. The Mentor must provide the appropriate developmental assistance at the same time allow the Prot?g? to prosecute, manage, and coordinate the work as the Prime contractor. -Even though other federal agencies (FAA, VA, DOI, USDA, etc..) may not be required to recognize the DoD Mentor-Prot?g? agreement because there is no parity or reciprocity with their Mentor-Prot?g? programs, the agency should at a minimum ?consider the nature and extent of the relationship between the two companies?. Please comment on the above as to whether the interpretation is accurate or inaccurate in terms of GAO decision history and applicable regulation. GAO Decision history and applicable FAR / CFR citing is greatly appreciated.

Seeker - I could not find the 23 Feb 09 blog entry from Mr. Edwards. Could you please point me in the right direction or copy and paste it into this topic. Much appreciated.

Many RFPs which utilize the LPTA method of evaluation break the Technical Proposal into the following factors: Factor 1: Previous Corporate Experience Factor 2: Key Personnel Factor 3: Technical Approach Factor 4: Past Performance Each of these factors are evaluated as either technically acceptable or unacceptable. My questions are as follows: Can a "newly established entity" successfully answer Factor 1, without having any " Previous Corporate Experience"? How can a "newly established entity" be found neutral on Factor 4 (Past Performance) and unacceptable on Factor 1(Previous Corporate Experience)? In reading the GAO decision on the matter of: Olympus Building Services, Inc. / File Number: B-282887 It seems the precedent has been established that "the Agency Acquisition officials have broad discretion in the selecting of evaluation factors that will be used in an acquisition". I would take this to mean that the Contracting Officer can make the decision as to whether he/she will accept the "newly established entity" key personnel / corporate officer previous experience on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity - but there is no legal requirement for the Contracting Officer to do so. Is this a correct interpretation? Under this LPTA method, the "newly established entity" may drop to neutral on the "Past Performance" factor (Primarily b/c of the protection 15.305 offers firms with no relevant past performance, however, the "newly established entity" does not have the same safeguard in the "Previous Corporate Experience" factor. Please comment on this issue. Please recommend applicable GAO Decision history.