HLC Industries, Inc.

B-274374 Dec 06, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Determination that protester's performance was poor under those contracts. Evaluation of protester's past performance as marginal were reasonable and consistent with solicitation criteria that stated that agency would consider timeliness of performance. Agency's evaluation of offerors' past performance was reasonable where the prior contracts selected for evaluation were performed in the last 2 years and. The cloth will be used for the manufacture of clothing (tee shirts) by Federal Prison Industries. Which is contracting with the Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC) for the delivery of finished items of clothing. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall expected value and was considered most advantageous based on past performance. View Decision Matter of: HLC Industries, Inc. File: B-274374 Date: December 6, 1996 Contracting officer's consideration of protester's late deliveries under prior contracts; determination that protester's performance was poor under those contracts; and evaluation of protester's past performance as marginal were reasonable and consistent with solicitation criteria that stated that agency would consider timeliness of performance, in addition to other factors, in evaluation of past performance. Agency's evaluation of offerors' past performance was reasonable where the prior contracts selected for evaluation were performed in the last 2 years and, like the solicitation at issue, called for the manufacture of cloth meeting the standards of the using agency for physical, shade, and end item testing, and thus involved work similar to that required under the solicitation at issue. Attorneys DECISION HLC Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Coville, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. IPI-R-0502-96, issued by the Bureau of Prisons for brown cotton cloth. HLC contends that the agency did not properly evaluate its proposal. We deny the protest. On May 2, 1996, the agency issued the RFP for a firm, fixed-price requirements contract for cloth to supply to the Federal Correctional Institution in Jesup, Georgia. The cloth will be used for the manufacture of clothing (tee shirts) by Federal Prison Industries, a wholly-owned government corporation within the Department of Justice that operates under the trade name "Unicor" at various federal correctional institutions in the federal prison system, and which provides employment, education, and training opportunities to inmates under federal custody. Unicor operates approximately 100 factories at 53 different locations that manufacture a variety of products for the government. Under the contract here, the awardee would provide fabric to Unicor, which is contracting with the Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC) for the delivery of finished items of clothing. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall expected value and was considered most advantageous based on past performance, "specification," [1] and price, with past performance being the most important factor. With regard to past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to provide information on the last five contracts performed which were similar to the instant requirement, and advised offerors that the agency would consider this information, along with any other information received regarding past contracts and any additional data obtained in the evaluation. The RFP stated that the contracting officer would consider the following factors: "The offeror's records of past performance, and to what extent the performance has been satisfactory. The offeror's cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction with the [g]overnment, public and private agencies. The timeliness of performance taking into account excusable delays. . . ." The agency received seven offers on June 3, evaluated them, and requested submission of best and final offers. The protester submitted the lowest price (thus receiving the maximum score available for price, 25 points), with Coville third low (23.71 points); both Coville and HLC received the maximum score (25 points) for the second evaluation factor, "specification." Under the past performance factor, the contracting officer reviewed three contracts--in the case of HLC and Coville, two contracts that each had performed for Unicor and one other contract listed in each offeror's proposal. Coville received three positive reports and a "good" rating (receiving 40 out of 50 points available), while HLC received two negative reports, which along with one positive report, earned the protester a "marginal" rating (30 points).