dating site for scientologists - Regulation mandating
AR, Tab 19, Agency Past Performance Memorandum, at 1‑2. (Government and Military Certification Systems, Inc. B-414740.5: Dec 19, 2017)Dyn Corp objects to the three marginal ratings, arguing that the ratings are not supported by the record and are inconsistent with the CPARs. Dyn Corp further contends that its overall satisfactory confidence rating is irrational because it is based on the agency's "selective reliance on one-off comments" made in the narrative portions of the CPARs or during the past performance interviews. In this respect, the PPET's [past performance evaluation team] determination that Dyn Corp's past performance record included three adverse performance issues is unobjectionable. A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. In this respect, the CPARs demonstrate that while Dyn Corp was lauded for certain aspects of its performance, supply support-related concerns were documented as well.Following the agencys corrective action, the agency attempted to contact two additional organizations identified by GMCS in its proposal as past performance references. Given this, we find the record does not support the protesters contention that the agency failed to contact any of its past performance references GMCS provided. As noted above, the RFP defined adverse as "past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system." RFP at 333. For instance, in the 2011-2012 CPAR, in addition to the comments cited by the PPET, the CPAR evaluator noted that Dyn Corp's "weakness lies in the areas of Aircraft Maintenance and Logistical Support." AR, Tab 17, Dyn Corp PPI for INL/A Contract, at 13. The CPARs did not include other comments relevant to the PPET's assessment under the supply support element or indicate that Dyn Corp's approach to logistics improved during performance.The net effect of this was to distort the agencys evaluation because it added quality ratings of unknown relevance and relevancy determinations of unknown quality.
For instance, with regard to the subelement relating to lifecycle management experience providing maintenance and repair, the agencys evaluation was as follows:2. Experience, in the last five years, in executing lifecycle management programs to ensure: i. USMMI provided eight contracts as evidence of its experience for element 2(a)(i).
USMMI demonstrated [it] has Relevant and Very Relevant experience for element 2(a)(i).
4, 2017; AR, Tab 12, Agency Past Performance Notes.
With regard to the individual the protester asserts was never contacted--that is, the individual that the agency claimed provided the negative review during the initial evaluation--the agency official explains that during the initial evaluation she emailed this individual, and subsequently spoke by phone with this individual.
The evaluation of an offeror's past performance is within the discretion of the contracting agency, and we will not substitute our judgment for reasonably based past performance ratings. On this record, we find unobjectionable the agency's assessment that the supply support element for Dyn Corp's INL/A contract reflected adverse performance, as defined in the RFP.
While Dyn Corp disagrees with this determination, primarily contending that the firm never received less than satisfactory ratings on the CPARs, such disagreement does not demonstrate an unreasonable evaluation.Examples of a legislative mandate: (1) a law establishes a new regulatory program and mandates that an agency promulgate a regulation to implement the program, and (2) the Code of Virginia is amended so that an agency/board regulation on the subject must also be amended in order to be consistent with the Code.Once a regulatory action is begun to implement a legislative mandate, the agency must "associate" the regulatory action and the legislative mandate so that a Town Hall user can track the implementation of a mandate from the beginning of the regulatory process to the end. In this regard, the contracting officer explained that VNT failed to describe in its proposal the percentage of services that the subcontractor would provide. Based on the totality of the past performance record, including the consideration of somewhat positive PPIRS information, the contracting officer concluded that there was a "low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort." Id. Given that VNT failed to disclose what percentage of the effort its proposed subcontractor was to perform, the agency's consideration of VNT's subcontractor's performance record here is unobjectionable. In addition, the contracting officer noted that VNT previously failed to timely pay its subcontractors, "raising a question of how long the proposed subcontractor might actually perform work on this contract." Id.With regard to the second individual who the protester asserts was never contacted, the agency official explains that she attempted to email this individual, and never received a response.Tags: Adult Dating, affair dating, sex dating