Packaging Strategies, Inc., B-280814, November 25, 1998

B-280814 Nov 25, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A proposal for transit cases is technically acceptable with regard to a requirement that the cases not have sharp metal edges. Is reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation scheme. The RFP was issued on July 9. The procurement was handled as part of the test program using simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items. The cases will be used to transport Intelligence/Operations Workstation (IOW) equipment in combat and combat-simulated situations. Which are the cornerstone of the entire IOW design. It found that expedited acquisition of the cases is required and acquisition delays will cause a substantial delay in the fielding of the IOW. The RFP stated that meeting the stated delivery schedule was critical. View Decision Matter of: Packaging Strategies, Inc. File: B-280814 Date: November 25, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Packaging Strategies, Inc. protests an award to ECS Composites under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-98-R-0457, issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Charleston, South Carolina, for five types of transit cases for information technology equipment. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on July 9, 1998, as a total small business set-aside, pursuant to the streamlined procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6 (June 1997) for the evaluation and solicitation of commercial items. RFP at 1. The procurement was handled as part of the test program using simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items. See FAR Subpart 13.5. The RFP contemplated a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for 3 years with an estimated total quantity of 2,900 cases and a minimum guaranteed value of $50,000. RFP at 1-2. The cases will be used to transport Intelligence/Operations Workstation (IOW) equipment in combat and combat-simulated situations. Agency Report, Sept. 15, 1998, Tab 30, RFP at 1. The agency has a critical need for these cases, which are the cornerstone of the entire IOW design; it found that expedited acquisition of the cases is required and acquisition delays will cause a substantial delay in the fielding of the IOW. Agency Report, Tab 30. The RFP stated that meeting the stated delivery schedule was critical. RFP at 3. The RFP stated that award would be made on a best value basis and listed two evaluation factors of equal importance--past performance and price. RFP at 3. The stated criteria for evaluating past performance were quality of product or service and timeliness of performance/delivery. Id. The RFP instructed offerors to submit data on a maximum of five contracts performed in the past 3 years. Id. The RFP stated that data submitted by offerors and independent data may be used in the evaluation and, since the government may not interview all of the sources provided by the offeror, it was the offeror's responsibility to explain the relevance of the data it provides and to submit thorough and complete past performance information. Id. Five offerors submitted proposals by the July 16 due date. Ultimately, only the proposals of Packaging Strategies and ECS were determined to be in the competitive range. Agency Report at 3. The agency evaluated the proposals for compliance with the technical requirements stated in the RFP, and for past performance and price under the RFP's best value evaluation plan. Packaging Strategies' proposed price was lower than ECS's. Id. Packaging Strategies' proposal was evaluated as technically acceptable. Under past performance, the proposal identified 10 prior contracts for evaluation; however, it did not provide all of the contract information requested in the RFP. Although the RFP stated that information on a maximum of five contracts could be submitted, the agency attempted to contact eight of Packaging Strategies' references--all of the points of contacts for which adequate information was given. Of these attempted contacts, the agency successfully reached five references, four of which submitted past performance questionnaires. Of the four responding references, one reported quality deficiencies, a second reported slow delivery, and a third reported deficiencies in both areas. The fourth questionnaire was incomplete and did not provide information to permit evaluation under quality, although it did indicate that Packaging Strategies timely performed under the contract. The agency considered the reported deficiencies in quality and delivery to be more than isolated incidents and evaluated Packaging Strategies as high risk under past performance. Agency Report at 3, Tab 8. ECS's proposal contained five past performance references. The agency contacted all of these references and received questionnaires from two of them. Both references provided comments which rated ECS's performance as excellent for quality and timely delivery.