Macon Apparel Corporation

B-272162 Sep 04, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency evaluation of protester's past performance as "marginally acceptable" is unobjectionable where agency considered protester's improvements in deliveries and contractual adjustments to delivery schedules. Found protester's deliveries under five of six most recent contracts were inexcusably delinquent. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of Macon's past performance was flawed. Offerors were required to submit a product demonstration model (PDM) using the materials specified in the RFP. Offerors also were required to describe their experience with production of the same or similar garments within the last 2 years. Proposals were evaluated on price and four technical factors. View Decision Matter of: Macon Apparel Corporation File: B-272162 Date: September 4, 1996 Agency evaluation of protester's past performance as "marginally acceptable" is unobjectionable where agency considered protester's improvements in deliveries and contractual adjustments to delivery schedules, but found protester's deliveries under five of six most recent contracts were inexcusably delinquent. Attorneys DECISION Macon Apparel Corporation protests the award of a contract to Martin Manufacturing Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-95-R- 0095, issued by the Defense Personnel Support Center, Defense Logistics Agency for the manufacture of certain shirts. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of Macon's past performance was flawed. The RFP sought proposals to manufacture long-sleeve shirts for wear by Navy personnel. The RFP contemplated a basic award for the manufacture of 123,360 shirts, with two mandatory options of 123,360 shirts each. Offerors were required to submit a product demonstration model (PDM) using the materials specified in the RFP. Offerors also were required to describe their experience with production of the same or similar garments within the last 2 years, including delivery and quality performance information and explanations of any substandard quality or delinquent delivery. Proposals were evaluated on price and four technical factors, listed in descending order of importance: PDMs; experience/past performance; manufacturing plan; and quality assurance plan. Technical quality was more important than price. Proposals were rated on an adjectival basis with categories of highly acceptable, acceptable, marginally acceptable, and unacceptable. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated as most advantageous to the government. Three offerors including Macon and Martin submitted proposals by the May 4, 1996, closing date. In its initial evaluation, the agency rated all three proposals marginally acceptable under the experience/past performance factor and thus, marginally acceptable overall. In October 1995, the agency conducted discussions with all three. Among other things, the agency identified five of Macon's six recent contracts which were delinquent and invited Macon to describe the reasons for the delinquency and future actions to be taken to preclude further delinquencies. The agency invited Martin and the other offeror to explain negative aspects of some, but not all, of their delinquent contracts. In reviewing the offerors' responses, the agency found that the delivery delays for all offerors were inexcusable and determined not to change the marginally acceptable rating for any of the offerors. After conducting more rounds of negotiations, the agency requested best and final offers (BAFO) from all three. At that point, all three proposals were rated marginally acceptable overall due to marginally acceptable experience/past performance ratings. In April 1996, during its final review, the agency discovered that Martin and the third offeror had not been provided an opportunity to address instances of negative past performance on certain contracts. [1] Since these offerors' marginal ratings were based on these unresolved negative aspects, the agency reopened negotiations with all offerors. The agency identified the contracts in question for Martin and the third offeror and provided Macon the opportunity to furnish any additional or revised information. As a result of Martin's responses, the agency evaluated Martin's proposal as acceptable in all factors including experience/past performance. The agency did not change the marginally acceptable ratings for Macon and the third offer. While the contracting officer considered Macon's competitive prices and the firm's recent improvements in performance, he determined that Martin's proposal, specifically in the area of past performance, was clearly technically superior to the others and warranted paying a premium of $409,548.08 (16 percent) over Macon's price.