

As the adage goes, reputations take a career to build and a second to lose. For federal contractors, a tarnished reputation can cost you work. One contractor recently learned the hard way that a history of successful contracting can be undone by a single poor performance.
GAO’s decision in Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc., B-420086 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 22, 2021) is an example of how negative performance on other contracts can impact future awards.
On June 30, 2021, the Bureau of Land Management sought multiple contractors to supply various live seeds to support its land restoration efforts. The seeds would be used for replanting following wildfires or during wildlife rehabilitation projects.
Among the solicitation’s evaluation considerations was past performance. The Bureau anticipated reviewing both the quality and delivery performance of contractors during the preceding three years. It also reserved the right to consider any prior federal contract performance within the same period.
The Bureau received several proposals in response to the solicitation. Given the competitive pricing and capabilities of offerors, past performance became the deciding evaluation factor.
Stevenson had a long history of successful past performance, but a recent procurement had tarnished its reputation. In April of 2021, the Bureau awarded Stevenson an unrelated contract for nine small seed lots. Two of these lots were terminated because Stevenson supplied contaminated seeds. Stevenson received a negative CPAR reflecting the contamination issues.
Stevenson’s competitor, Flying M, did not have any CPAR reports. Nevertheless, it had successfully completed several jobs for the Bureau. Importantly, Flying M had no negative past performance.
Flying M’s lack of negative past performance won out. Since its proposal was merely $50 more expensive, the Bureau concluded that Flying M represented the best value to the government. The Bureau specifically cited to Flying M’s history of successful performance as the basis for the award.
Stevenson protested the decision. It argued that the Bureau had overblown its performance issues under the April contract. As GAO summarized, “[Stevenson] argues that the agency improperly focused on the negative past performance information for 50 pounds of seeds and failed to consider that over a 35-year period the protester ‘delivered in excess of 1,000,000 pounds of seed to the [Bureau] with no less than satisfactory performance ratings until this one[.]’”
GAO was not persuaded. As GAO explained, “[t]he evaluation and consideration of past performance, by its very nature, is subjective and we will not substitute our judgment for reasonably based evaluation ratings.” It concluded the Bureau’s evaluation was reasonable because it weighed both the positive and negative aspects of Stevenson’s past performance. Isolated as the contamination incident may have been, it was not unreasonable for the Bureau to consider it when justifying the award to Flying M. As such, GAO denied the protest.
The Stevenson decision is a reminder of how quickly a contractor’s reputation can be lost. While Stevenson had a long history of successful performance, that performance was undermined by a single performance gaff on a recent contract.
This decision is a reminder to all contractors, you’re only as good as your most recent performance.