Creative Apparel Associates

B-275139 Jan 24, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Allegation that agency improperly evaluated awardee's proposal is denied where evaluation documentation clearly demonstrates that the ratings assigned to the proposal were reasonable and reflected the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Lower-rated proposal is denied where agency reasonably determined that cost premium associated with award to higher-rated. Higher-priced offeror was not justified by slightly higher technical rating. The RFP called for offerors to submit a written summary of their past experience and quality history during the past 2 years which demonstrated their capability to manufacture the jacket in accordance with the specification and delivery requirements. [2] Four proposals were received in response to the solicitation. View Decision Matter of: Creative Apparel Associates File: B-275139 Date: January 24, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Creative Apparel Associates protests the Defense Logistics Agency's award of a contract to Carter Industries, Inc. to provide police security jackets under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-95-R-0305. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a base quantity with two option quantities of jackets. [1] The RFP stated that technical criteria would be more important than price in the source selection decision. The RFP set forth a technical evaluation scheme which provided that proposals would be evaluated under the following technical criteria, listed in descending order of importance: product demonstration model, past performance, manufacturing plan, and quality assurance plan. The RFP called for offerors to submit a written summary of their past experience and quality history during the past 2 years which demonstrated their capability to manufacture the jacket in accordance with the specification and delivery requirements. [2] Four proposals were received in response to the solicitation, and the agency, after considering both cost and technical factors, included the three highest technically ranked proposals in the competitive range. Carter's proposal stated that the company was formed with the purpose of purchasing the assets of Isratex, Inc., which filed for protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings in May 1994. Pursuant to a reorganization plan, Carter began managing the daily operations of Isratex's business in June 1995, and, in this regard, began performance on contracts which had been awarded to Isratex. [3] Carter is managed by its two owners, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Azrak, neither of whom had a prior association with Isratex. On June 21, 1996, the novation of five of Isratex's government contracts to Carter was finally approved. [4] Carter took the position in its proposal that it did not have any past performance history since it had not manufactured any end items for either the U.S. Government or commercial customers, and therefore deserved a "neutral" rating for past performance. [5] Written discussions were conducted with the competitive range offerors. The contracting officer determined that specific past performance data did in fact exist for Carter because Carter had been performing Isratex's contracts since June 1995, even though the novation agreement was not approved until later. Therefore, during discussions, Carter was asked, among other things, to provide information and explanations regarding delinquencies on certain contracts which were originally awarded to Isratex and were currently being performed by Carter pursuant to the novation agreement. Based on this performance record, the contracting officer determined that a neutral rating was not justified, and gave Carter a "marginally acceptable" rating for past performance. All offerors submitted best and final offers (BAFO) by the closing date. The BAFO's were evaluated as follows: Offeror Total Price (Base Technical Rating quantity plus two option quantities) Carter $2,954,958.72 Marginally Acceptable Creative $3,247,249.60 Acceptable Offeror C $3,512,978.56 Acceptable Creative's proposal was evaluated as acceptable under all four criteria, while the Carter proposal was evaluated as acceptable under three, but marginally acceptable under past performance resulting in an overall rating of marginally acceptable. While Carter's proposal received a slightly lower overall technical rating than Creative's proposal because of its past performance assessment, the agency decided that Carter's proposal represented the best value to the government based on its significantly lower price. This protest followed. Creative raises numerous arguments to the effect that the technical evaluation was improper, and that the resulting source selection therefore was invalid.