TennierIndustries, Inc., B-286706.2;B-286706.3, March 14,2001

TennierIndustries, Inc., B-286706.2;B-286706.3, March 14,2001 TITLE: TennierIndustries, Inc., B-286706.2;B-286706.3, March 14,2001 BNUMBER: B-286706.2;B-286706.3 DATE: March 14, 2001 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: TennierIndustries, Inc. File: B-286706.2;B-286706.3 Date: March 14,2001 RuthE. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, for the protester. JamesJ. McCullough, Esq., and Steven A. Alerding, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris,Shriver & Jacobson, for Tennessee Apparel Corporation, an intervenor. KatherineA. Day, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. ScottH. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging best valuesource selection decision is sustained where record shows that agency baseddecision, in part, on considerations not included in solicitation's evaluationscheme. DECISION Tennier Industries, Inc.protests the award of a contract to Tennessee Apparel Corporation (TAC) underrequest for proposals (RFP) No. TX00000005, issued by the Federal Bureau ofPrisons (BOP), Department of Justice, for quantities of laminated camouflagecloth cut into pieces to be used in the manufacture of trousers. Tennier maintains that the agencymisevaluated the offerors' past performance and improperly made its sourceselection decision based on considerations not set forth in the RFP'sevaluation scheme. We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of anindefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year, with two1-year options. The evaluation was tobe conducted on a best value basis. TheRFP listed two non-price evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: past performance and specification statementof work. RFP sect. M.5. The solicitation contained no elaborationregarding what would be encompassed in the agency's review under these factors,and the agency did not have a source selection plan that otherwise describedthem. As for price, for each contractyear offerors were required to submit fixed unit prices for fabric for ninesizes of trousers, and also a price for tape used to finish the seams of thetrousers. RFP sect. B. The two non-price factors, when combined,were significantly more important than price. RFP sect. M.5. BOP received offers only from TAC and the protester. After evaluating the proposals[1],the agency assigned the following point scores: Past Perf. Specif./SOW Price Total Score Price Offeror (60 avail. (25 points) (15 points) points) TAC [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Tennier [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Based on these evaluation results, the agency selected TACas the firm submitting the proposal offering the best overall value to thegovernment, and thus made award to that firm. PAST PERFORMANCE Tennier protests the agency's evaluation of its proposalunder the past performance factor, specifically, that BOP improperly applied theadjectival standards used in the evaluation, assigning its proposal a ?good?instead of an ?excellent? rating for each of the three prior contracts that BOPreviewed. Our Office does not independently evaluate proposals, butinstead reviews the agency's evaluation to ensure that it is reasonable andconsistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation scheme. Westinghouse Gov't and Envtl. Servs. Co.,Inc., B-280928 et al., Dec. 4, 1998, 99-1 CPD para. 3 at 5. When considering the ratings assigned by anagency to an offeror's proposal we have consistently taken the position thatevaluation ratings, be they adjectival, numerical or color, are merely guidesfor intelligent decision-making in the procurement process. KBM Group, Inc., B-281919,B-281919.2, May 3, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 118 at 11. The relevant consideration in our review of an agency's evaluation iswhether the record demonstrates that the agency reasonably assessed therelative merits of the proposals in accordance with the stated criteria. Id. The record shows that BOP reasonably determined that TAC'spast performance was superior to Tennier's. In discussing Tennier's performance on two Defense Supply CenterPhiladelphia (DSCP) contracts, the DSCP representative stated that there wereno problems noted under either contract, that deliveries had been timely andquality acceptable, and that he would do business with Tennier again. Tennier Past Performance Evaluation Report,Nov. 20, 2000, at 2.