KELO, Inc., B-284601.2, June 7, 2000

B-284601.2 Jun 07, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) contract award for fabric used to manufacture T-shirts, contending that UNICOR unreasonably evaluated its past performance. GAO held that UNICOR reasonably evaluated the protester's past performance, and it had no basis to question UNICOR's source selection. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: KELO, Inc. File: B-284601.2 Date: June 7, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION KELO, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Coville, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1PI-R-1474-00/PFU, issued by Federal Prison Industries for fabric to be used to manufacture T-shirts. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of KELO's past performance was unreasonable. We deny the protest. Federal Prison Industries is a wholly-owned government corporation within the Department of Justice that operates at various locations within the federal prison system under the trade name UNICOR. RFP amend. 3, at 12. UNICOR operates factories at 70 locations providing employment, education, and training to inmates in federal custody. Id. In so doing, UNICOR ensures the safety and security of operations at federal correctional facilities while producing and selling market-priced, quality goods in a self-sustaining manner. UNICOR states that it achieves this mission by manufacturing the products it sells. Warvel Prods., Inc., B-281051.5, July 7, 1999, 99-2 CPD Para. 13 at 2. On November 12, 1999, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract to supply nine line items of 100% polyester Jersey, heather gray fabric for a base year, with four 1-year option periods to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) at Jesup, Georgia. RFP amend. 3, at 3-11. UNICOR will use the fabric to manufacture and deliver the shirts for use as part of a physical fitness uniform for the military. RFP amend. 3, at 12. The RFP basically stated that the contracting officer would make award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value and was considered most advantageous to the government based on the criteria of past performance, specification, and price, in that order of importance. /1/ RFP at 51-52. The RFP provided for scoring on a 100-point basis, with past performance worth 60 points, specification worth 25 points, and price worth 15 points. RFP at 52. The RFP stated that factors other than price, when combined, would be significantly more important than price. Id. The RFP provided for past performance ratings of "poor," defined as "unfavorable"; "marginal," defined as "more unfavorable than favorable"; "good," defined as "more favorable than unfavorable"; and "excellent," defined as "entirely favorable." RFP at 52. For the evaluation of past performance, the RFP directed offerors to identify at least three and no more than five completed contracts, similar to the one being evaluated. RFP at 48. A questionnaire was included that requested specific information concerning the contracts, including contract number, contractor name, address and telephone number, the type of contract, contract amount and the status of any uncompleted contracts. RFP at 48-49. The RFP asked offerors to list UNICOR contracts first. RFP at 48. The RFP further stated that, in the evaluation of past performance, the agency would be considering the offeror's record of adherence to contract schedules, cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction. RFP at 51. The RFP stated that offerors had the opportunity to submit information on problems with past customers and to address the resolution of those problems, and that FPI would examine recent contracts to ensure that the offeror had implemented any corrective measures taken in response to such problems. Id. The agency received six offers and determined one of them technically unacceptable. Debriefing Memorandum 2 (Feb. 23, 2000). The protester submitted the lowest price, for which it received a perfect score (15 points); the agency awarded Coville a price score (KELO's price divided by Coville's price, multiplied by 15) of 14.35 points. Undated Memorandum, Subject: Best Value Evaluation/Consignment. Both offerors received a perfect score, 25 points, for the specification factor. Debriefing Memorandum 1 (Feb. 23, 2000). Based on a review of each offeror's past performance, Coville received a perfect past performance score, 60 points ("excellent" or "entirely favorable"). Coville's Past Performance Evaluation at 1-2. Regarding KELO's past performance, in its proposal, KELO provided specific information on one contract--a current one for delivery of similar fabric to FCI Jesup. Letter from KELO to Contracting Officer (Jan. 5, 2000). KELO also referred to a contract with the State of Michigan, but provided no reference for this contract. Id.