Wellco Enterprises, Inc., B-282150, June 4, 1999

B-282150 Jun 04, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights There is no basis to object to agency decision not to communicate with offeror regarding whether it intended to comply with material specification requirements contained in solicitation's purchase description. Since any such communication would have constituted discussions. Wellco also argues that Cove's participation in the procurement presented an organizational conflict of interest which should have disqualified the firm from receiving the award. The RFP stated that PDMs were to be subjected to evaluation for all characteristics of the purchase description (PD) /1/ attached to the RFP. The RFP emphasized that PDM was the most important evaluation factor and stated that technical quality was more important than price. View Decision Matter of: Wellco Enterprises, Inc. File: B-282150 Date: June 4, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Wellco Enterprises, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as unacceptable and the award of a contract to Cove Shoe Co. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-98-R-0021, issued by the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for intermediate, cold/wet boots with safety toe. Wellco argues that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal. Wellco also argues that Cove's participation in the procurement presented an organizational conflict of interest which should have disqualified the firm from receiving the award. We deny the protest. Background The RFP, issued on March 9, 1998, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, fixed-price contract for a minimum of 21,348 and a maximum of 35,586 pairs of boots during the base period, with up to two 1-year options. RFP Sec. B, at 6-7, Sec. I, at 49. Section M of the RFP listed the following evaluation criteria in descending order of importance: product demonstration models (PDM); experience/past performance; DLA mentoring business agreements program; and socioeconomic considerations. Id. Sec. M, at 67. The RFP stated that PDMs were to be subjected to evaluation for all characteristics of the purchase description (PD) /1/ attached to the RFP, including conformance to the visual, dimensional, and end item test requirements of the PD. Id. Sec. L, at 60, Sec. M, at 68. End item tests would consist of a leakage test and an impact resistance test. Id. Sec. L, at 60. The RFP emphasized that PDM was the most important evaluation factor and stated that technical quality was more important than price. Id. Sec. M, at 67. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to the solicitation and was deemed most advantageous to the government. Id. With their proposals, offerors were required to submit three pairs of boots of any size for evaluation for conformance to the visual, dimensional, and end item test requirements of the RFP's PD. Id. Sec. L, at 60. The RFP specifically warned that "[f]ailure of models to conform to the requirements of the [PD] may result in an unfavorable evaluation of the offer." Id. The RFP further stated that the government preferred that all materials to be used in the PDMs be those listed in the PD. If an offeror proposed to use alternate materials, however, the RFP required the offeror to provide a letter with its PDM stating any departures from the PD. Offerors were further required to include a statement certifying that if awarded the contract, the item would comply with all the terms of the PD. Id. By letter to DSCP dated March 12, Cove suggested several changes to the PD, which DSCP forwarded to the Navy for review and approval. Pending the Navy's review of Cove's suggestions, DSCP extended indefinitely the RFP's closing date. RFP amend. 0001, Mar. 24, 1998. The agency subsequently amended the RFP to incorporate the changes to the PD approved by the Navy and establish a new closing date of August 24. RFP amend. 0002, July 16, 1998. Wellco also requested changes to the PD, primarily addressing the construction of the toe area of the boot. AR, Tab 9, Letter from Wellco to DSCP (July 31, 1998). /2/ Although DSCP forwarded Wellco's request to the Navy for review and approval, the Navy responded that it would not be possible to review and approve the requested changes to the PD prior to the solicitation's August 24 closing date. The contracting officer (CO) explains that on or about August 18, a Wellco representative telephoned her to inquire as to the status of its requested changes to the PD. The CO states that she explained to Wellco that the Navy had not yet responded to the requested changes to the PD and that the closing date would not be extended. AR, Tab 12, CO Affidavit.