U.S. Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3, December 19, 2002

B-289685.3 Dec 19, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Train senior supervisory personnel at the foreign affiliate's facilities (where item being procured currently is being produced). Have the foreign affiliate's management and senior technical personnel be involved in training and be "hands on" at the new domestic facility. Award was to be made to the responsible. Small business offerors whose conforming proposals were most advantageous to the government. Offerors were required to "describe their experience with producing the same or items of similar complexity within the past two (2) years.". Technical factors were more important than price. Six proposals for item No. 0001 and five for item No. 0002 were included in the competitive range. View Decision U.S. Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3, December 19, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION U.S. Textiles, Inc. (UST) protests the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) award of a contract to Dorothea Knitting Mills U.S., Ltd. (DKMUS), under request for proposals No. SP0100-01-R-0045, for military berets. UST challenges the evaluation of proposals and price/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for award of two contracts to different offerors, for a 24-month base period with 3 option years, for military wool berets for the U.S. Army and Air Force, including 1 (line item No. 0001) for 3,643,488 berets of various colors, and a second (line item No. 0002) for 3,643,440 black berets. Award was to be made to the responsible, small business offerors whose conforming proposals were most advantageous to the government. The solicitation provided for proposals to be evaluated with respect to price and several technical factors, including (in descending order of importance) experience/past performance, manufacturing plan, quality control plan, and participation in the DLA Mentoring Business Agreements Program. Under the experience/past performance factor, offerors were required to "describe their experience with producing the same or items of similar complexity within the past two (2) years." RFP Sec. L at 129. Technical factors were more important than price. Sixteen offerors submitted proposals; six proposals for item No. 0001 and five for item No. 0002 were included in the competitive range. Price Negotiation Memorandum, May 28, 2002, at 1-10. After discussions with the offerors in the competitive range, DLA requested submission of final proposal revisions (FPR). Based upon its evaluation of FPRs, DLA determined that DKMUS's proposal for item No. 0001 was most advantageous because, while DKMUS's price ($31,465,877) was somewhat higher (approximately 14.5 percent) than UST's ($27,470,470), the price premium was offset by the technical superiority of DKMUS's proposal; DLA found that DKMUS's technical proposal was "far superior" to UST's and, in particular, that it was clearly superior in the area of experience/past performance, the most important technical factor. Source Selection Decision Document, Item No. 0001, at 1-3. DLA therefore awarded item No. 0001 to DKMUS. UST challenges the agency's determination that DKMUS was superior with respect to experience/past performance on the basis that UST has "vast experience in related textile manufacturing," and that the experience cited for DKMUS was outside of the United States. UST Comments, Nov. 15, 2002, at 3. The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the contracting agency's discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. Hago-Cantu Joint Venture, B-279637.2, July 20, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 99 at 11. In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate the proposal, but will examine the record of the evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and in accordance with stated evaluation criteria and not in violation of procurement laws and regulations. Id. The evaluation here was unobjectionable. DKMUS's higher rating under the experience/past performance factor was based on DLA's finding that, whereas Dorothea Knitting Mills (Canada) (DKM Canada), a company associated with DKMUS through common ownership, had successfully produced more than 950,000 berets for the U.S. government since November 2000, and 200,000 berets for the Canadian military during the prior 2 years, UST had never produced berets. Further, UST furnished no information concerning production more recent than July 2000 (at the beginning of the 2-year period being evaluated), and the information it did furnish covered only contracts for throw rugs and various sportswear. DLA viewed the woven throw rugs and the cut-and-sew sportswear produced by UST as significantly less complex than berets, which require knitting, felting, dyeing, drying, shearing, binding, and blocking using specialized equipment.