Smith of Galeton Gloves, Inc.

B-271686 Jul 24, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance as marginally acceptable was reasonable where the record shows that the protester was delinquent on two contracts. Protester's deficient past performance rating was not required to be referred to the Small Business Administration for review as a responsibility matter under certificate of competency proceedings since past performance was a technical evaluation factor that was evaluated on a comparative basis. Where the solicitation stated that technical quality was more important than price. An award to a higher-priced offeror was reasonable where the source selection authority reasonably concluded that the awardee's proposal was technically superior to the protester's proposal and was worth its 10-percent higher price. View Decision Matter of: Smith of Galeton Gloves, Inc. File: B-271686 Date: July 24, 1996 Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance as marginally acceptable was reasonable where the record shows that the protester was delinquent on two contracts, and did not--in response to direct discussion questions--submit any evidence to explain these delinquencies. Protester's deficient past performance rating was not required to be referred to the Small Business Administration for review as a responsibility matter under certificate of competency proceedings since past performance was a technical evaluation factor that was evaluated on a comparative basis, and therefore did not constitute a finding pertaining to the protester's responsibility. Where the solicitation stated that technical quality was more important than price, an award to a higher-priced offeror was reasonable where the source selection authority reasonably concluded that the awardee's proposal was technically superior to the protester's proposal and was worth its 10-percent higher price. Attorneys DECISION Smith of Galeton Gloves, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Nationwide Glove Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-95- R-0244, issued by the Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for the manufacture and delivery of chemical protective glove inserts. Smith challenges the award on the ground that the agency improperly downgraded its proposal under the past performance evaluation factor; had this downgrading not occurred, Smith contends, it would have been equally ranked with Nationwide in technical merit, and would have received contract award as the lowest-priced offeror. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside on August 11, 1995, and contemplated the award of an indefinite quantity contract for a base year with 2 option years; the RFP set forth minimum/maximum estimates of 144,440/222,600 glove insert pairs per year. Offerors were to provide a product demonstration model (PDM) which would be evaluated by the agency for compliance with each of the technical criteria set forth in the solicitation's "PURCHASE DESCRIPTION," as well as a past performance "descri[ption] of their experience with producing the same or items of similar complexity, within the past two (2) years." The RFP further advised offerors that the past performance information "should demonstrate the ability to successfully produce the item identified in the solicitation without significant quality or schedule problems" and requested telephone numbers and contact personnel for all contracts referenced in the offerors' technical proposals. With regard to technical evaluations, the RFP provided that an adjectival rating scheme of highly acceptable; acceptable; marginally acceptable; and unacceptable would be used to score each offeror's proposal under the solicitation's two technical evaluation factors--PDM and Past Performance--which were listed in descending order of importance. For their price proposals, offerors were directed to complete and submit the solicitation's Section B "SUPPLIES/SERVICES" pricing schedule. In this regard, the RFP provided that contract award would be made to the offeror submitting the most advantageous offer, and emphasized that "technical quality is more important than price." By the September 25 closing time, three proposals--including one submitted by Nationwide and one submitted by the protester--were received. The results of the technical evaluation were as follows: Offeror PDM Factor Past Performance Factor Overall Rating Nationwide Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Smith Acceptable Marginally Acceptable Marginally Acceptable Offeror C Unacceptable Marginally Acceptable Marginally Acceptable Both Nationwide and Smith submitted glove inserts that lacked an identification/size label; Smith's PDM also lacked a required bar-code label.