Ashland Sales and Service Company, B-291206, December 5, 2002

B-291206 Dec 05, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Under a solicitation where technical quality was more important than price. The source selection authority's (SSA) price/technical tradeoff determination selecting a slightly lower-priced proposal over a slightly higher-rated proposal was unreasonable. Where the SSA relied on incorrect evaluation information that made the technical superiority of the higher-rated proposal appear significantly smaller than it actually was. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. Technical quality was more important than price. Or unacceptable was to be assigned each proposal under each factor. Offerors were required to submit a PDM with their proposals. The PDM was to be evaluated for. View Decision Ashland Sales and Service Company, B-291206, December 5, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ashland Sales and Service Company protests an award to Valley Apparel, LLC, under solicitation No. SPO100-00-R-4130, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Navy shipboard jackets. We sustain the protest. The solicitation, issued as a total set-aside for small business concerns on November 2, 2000, contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity contract for 1 year with 2 option years. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, considering price and technical quality. Technical quality was more important than price. The solicitation listed the technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) product demonstration model (PDM), (2) experience/past performance, (3) manufacturing plan, (4) quality assurance plan, and (5) DLA mentoring business agreement. An adjectival rating of either highly acceptable, acceptable, marginally acceptable, or unacceptable was to be assigned each proposal under each factor. RFP at 62, 66-67. Offerors were required to submit a PDM with their proposals. The PDM was to be evaluated for, among other things, "[c]onformance to the visual, dimensional and manufacturing requirements of the purchase description." Id. at 63. Relevant here is the following requirement for bartack stitching at the zipper: 3.2.11 Seams and stitches. . . . The jacket shall be . . . vertically bartacked at the top and bottom of both sides of the slide fastener, thru all plies including the slide fastener tape. Agency Report, Tab 22, Purchase Description, June 13, 2000, at 8. For the evaluation of experience/past performance, the solicitation instructed offerors to "describe their experience with producing the same or items of similar complexity within the past two (2) years." RFP at 58. The solicitation stated that the agency's evaluation would consider the information provided in proposals and obtained from other sources, and that the evaluation would be a subjective assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances to determine whether the offeror had consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of quality goods and services at fair and reasonable prices. The solicitation also stated that offerors might be given an opportunity to respond to unfavorable reports of past performance, and the responses, or lack thereof, would be considered in the evaluation. RFP at 63-64. The closing date for submission of initial proposals was December 27, 2000. The agency received seven proposals, including Ashland's and Valley's. Under the PDM factor, the agency evaluation rated both proposals acceptable. Ashland's PDM had one minor defect and Valley's had three minor defects. Ashland's deficiency was the absence of the bartacks required at the top and bottom of the slide fastener. Agency Report, Tab 4, Pre-Negotiation Briefing Memorandum, Apr. 27, 2001, at 3-4. Valley's three deficiencies were: (1) a larger hook and loop fastener on the inside pocket than was specified, (2) all bartacks were 1/8-inch larger than specified, and (3) the hanger loop was 1/2-inch shorter than specified (+/-1/4-inch). Id. at 6. The agency evaluation determined that all the deficiencies for both of these PDMs would be "easily corrected during production." Id. at 3, 6. Under the experience/past performance factor, the agency evaluation rated Ashland's proposal acceptable and Valley's marginally acceptable. The evaluation determined that both proposals had presented sufficient evidence of producing items of the same or similar complexity. The material aspects of the evaluation for these proposals concerned the offerors' records of timely performance and the quality of items produced. The evaluation determined that, while both offerors had completed the majority of their contracts in a timely manner, both also had completed some contract orders behind schedule. Id. at 4, 6-7. Valley also had a warranty action invoked against 22 percent of a contract.