The GAO sustained a bid protest challenging the award of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Supply Schedule task order for the procurement and installation of window retrofits because the EPA improperly considered past performance information for projects that were outside the five-year window established in the solicitation. GlassLock, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-299931 et al., Oct. 10, 2007. Contrary to the solicitation instructions, the awardee provided an introductory letter with its proposal that included past performance references for projects that the company had performed more than five years earlier. Although the EPA argued that the awardee’s introductory letter was not the basis for the agency’s evaluation of the offeror’s past performance, the record showed that the earlier projects were recognized as strengths and were a significant part of the EPA’s evaluation and source selection decision. The GAO also sustained the protest because the EPA essentially “double counted” the awardee’s past performance information when, in addition to considering this information under the experience and past performance evaluation factor, the agency assigned related strengths under the project plan/schedule technical factor, which did not encompass evaluation of an offeror’s experience and past performance. Finally, the GAO also sustained the protest because, contrary to the solicitation’s “best value” evaluation scheme, which provided for a tradeoff analysis with technical factors being more important than price, the EPA’s source selection decision was made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.