Wilson Beret Company, B-289685, April 9, 2002

B-289685 Apr 09, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of exclusion of protester's proposal from the competitive range is sustained where evaluation under one factor was unreasonable. Correct evaluation could have resulted in a different competitive range determination. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of five factors. Price. /1/ Non-price factors were significantly more important than price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. Which were evaluated as follows: . Its technical proposal is considered inferior to [Offerors 1. 6] and although it is essentially equal to that of [Offerors 4 and 5] from a technical standpoint. It is not superior to them and does not contain features which warrant retaining it in the competitive range. View Decision Wilson Beret Company, B-289685, April 9, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Wilson Beret Company protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-01-R-0045, issued as a total small business set-aside by the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for military berets. Wilson asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal. We sustain the protest. The RFP sought proposals to supply the Army and Air Force with berets of various colors, including black. With regard to black berets, the RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 2-year base period, with three 1-year options, encompassing 3,643,488 units. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of five factors, listed in descending order of importance: experience/past performance; manufacturing plan; quality control plan; DLA mentoring business agreements program; and price. /1/ Non-price factors were significantly more important than price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. Thirteen offerors, including Wilson, submitted written proposals to supply black berets, which were evaluated as follows: . Past Mfg. Quality DLA Overall Price . Performance Plan Plan Mentor (millions) Offeror 1 A (low end) MA A N A [deleted] Offeror 2 MA UA UA 6 UA [deleted] Offeror 3 A MA A N A [deleted] Offeror 4 MA (high end) MA A N MA [deleted] Offeror 5 MA A MA 3 MA [deleted] Offeror 6 HA A A N A [deleted] Offeror 7 MA (high end) MA MA 1 MA [deleted] Wilson MA (low end) MA HA N A [deleted] Offeror 9 A MA HA 2 A [deleted] Offeror MA A HA N A [deleted] 10 Offeror MA (high end) MA HA 5 MA (high [deleted] 11 end) Offeror MA (low end) MA MA N MA [deleted] 12 Offeror MA (high end) MA A N MA [deleted] 13 Agency Report (AR), Tab 6. Based on these evaluation results and prices, the contracting officer eliminated Wilson and offerors 2, 7, and 9-13 from the competitive range due to their technical ratings and their higher proposed prices, all of which exceeded the agency's price objective for black berets. AR, Tab 7, Para. 5. In eliminating Wilson's proposal, the contracting officer noted that it had been rated marginally acceptable under both the experience/past performance and manufacturing plan factors, resulting in an overall marginally acceptable rating. Specifically, she found: The Manufacturing Plan rated Marginally Acceptable contains deficiencies in the manufacturing procedures, production scheduling and production equipment subfactors . . . . Wilson's offered prices exceed the Government's negotiation objectives and the offered prices of the highest technically rated offeror in the competitive range, [offeror 6]. Its technical proposal is considered inferior to [Offerors 1, 3, and 6] and although it is essentially equal to that of [Offerors 4 and 5] from a technical standpoint, it is not superior to them and does not contain features which warrant retaining it in the competitive range. AR, Tab 7, Para. 7(h). After receiving notice of its elimination from the competitive range and a debriefing, Wilson filed this protest challenging the evaluation of its proposal under the experience/past performance and manufacturing plan factors, and the resulting elimination of its proposal from the competitive range. The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is principally a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency. Dismas Charities, Inc., B-284754, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 84 at 3. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.306(c) allows an agency to establish a competitive range consisting of only the most highly-rated proposals. Our Office will review an agency's evaluation of proposals and determination to exclude a proposal from the competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with the RFP and applicable statutes and regulations. Novavax, Inc., B-286167, B-286167.2, Dec. 4, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 202 at 13; SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para.