Sheela Inc. (B-423412)

You should not care.

Category: Past performance, technical evaluation, IDIQ

Date: 1 July 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423412

Sheela Inc. protested the US Air Force’s award of six multiple award construction IDIQ contracts (MACCs) under RFP No. FA448424R0017 for design-build and construction projects at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst, NJ. Sheela argued that the agency’s evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable, specifically contending the Air Force relied on a single negative CPARS report, disregarded Sheela's rebuttal, and failed to weigh more recent, favorable reviews. Sheela also asserted the Air Force improperly amended the solicitation after proposal submission.

Key issues raised:Past performance evaluation was reasonable and consistent: GAO found that the Air Force reasonably reviewed and balanced all available CPARS—including both negative and positive ratings and the required past performance questionnaires—before assigning Sheela a "limited confidence" rating. The record showed negative ratings in significant categories and that the evaluators considered all sources, including Sheela’s rebuttal, satisfying both regulatory and solicitation requirements.

No FAR violation for CPARS rebuttal; process followed: GAO clarified that the FAR provision regarding contractor rebuttals applies to the agency's handling of performance evaluations, not the source selection process. Nonetheless, the record showed the Air Force reviewed Sheela’s rebuttal during evaluation.

Untimely and piecemeal protest arguments: GAO dismissed Sheela’s arguments regarding alleged postsubmission amendments to the solicitation and unsupported allegations of unfair treatment as untimely and/or insufficient under bid protest regulations.

The protest was denied. GAO affirmed the agency’s broad discretion in evaluating past performance and held that Sheela had neither demonstrated the Air Force acted outside that discretion nor identified material error or procedural violation.

Absent clear evidence of an unreasonable evaluation or regulatory violation, challengers to past performance ratings will not succeed—especially where agencies demonstrate a comparative review of the record and follow their stated process.

Digest

Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protestor's past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.