Crown Clothing Corporation, B-277505.2, October 31, 1997

B-277505.2 Oct 31, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation. Protest challenging source selection decision in best value procurement is denied where agency reasonably concluded that the protester's higher- priced proposal offered no advantages that warranted paying the associated price premium. The RFP was issued in December 1996. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conformed with this solicitation and was most advantageous to the government. The RFP stated that technical quality was more important than cost or price. View Decision Matter of: Crown Clothing Corporation File: B-277505.2 Date: October 31, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Crown Clothing Corporation protests the evaluation of proposals and the source selection decision under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-96- R-0213, issued by the Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC), a field activity of the Defense Logistics Agency, for the manufacture of Army dress coats for men. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued in December 1996, as a total small business set-aside, to serve in part as a formal market survey to permit the agency to decide whether the current market offered a better value than could be obtained by exercising an option available under an existing contract. It contemplated the award of an indefinite quantity contract for the manufacture of Army dress coats, listing maximum and minimum quantities for a base year with 1 option year. The RFP, at section L, advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated for both technical merit and price reasonableness, following the evaluation procedures in section M of the RFP. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conformed with this solicitation and was most advantageous to the government. In that regard, the RFP stated that technical quality was more important than cost or price, but that, the more proposals were equal in their technical merit, the more important evaluated cost or price would be. The RFP stated that technical proposals would be used to assess the efficiency of the offeror's production methods and the effectiveness of their quality control procedures. Offerors were instructed to submit a sample coat, referred to as a "product demonstration model" (PDM), as part of their proposals. The RFP identified the specification for the PDM as MIL-C-44211B and stated that the failure of a model to conform to all requirements of the specification could result in an unfavorable evaluation of the offer. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: 1. Product Demonstration Model 2. Past Performance 3. Electronic Data Interchange Capability 4. Manufacturing Plan [with four subfactors] 5. Quality Assurance Plan 6. Socio-Economic Program Support The RFP provided some narrative guidance regarding the basis for evaluating each of these factors. For example, it stated that the PDM would be evaluated for conformance to visual and dimensional requirements of the specification and standard. Regarding past performance, it stated that the assessment of past performance would be used in two ways: to evaluate the credibility of the offeror's proposal, and to evaluate the relative capability of the offeror and the other competitors to meet the performance requirements of the proposed contract. Further, it stated that evaluation of past performance would be a subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances and would not be based on absolute standards of acceptable performance. Offerors were instructed to describe their experience with producing the same or a similar item within the last 2 years. The RFP required offerors to describe both delivery and quality performance under government and commercial contracts and advised offerors to furnish an explanation of substandard quality and/or delinquent delivery, where applicable. The RFP provided that after technical evaluation, technical proposals would be given an adjectival rating of highly acceptable, acceptable, marginally acceptable, or unacceptable. The RFP provided some description of the adjectives' application to each of the evaluation factors. For example, it stated that a highly acceptable PDM would meet the stated requirements of the specification and have no deficiencies, whereas an acceptable PDM would meet the stated requirements of the specification but would exhibit deficiencies that would be easily correctable during production. Four firms, including Crown, submitted proposals with PDMs. Technical proposals were evaluated and given adjectival ratings.