Tenderfoot Sock Company, Inc., B-293088.2, July 30, 2004

B-293088.2 Jul 30, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tenderfoot Sock Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Southern Hosiery Mills, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-NC-03-0024, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for diabetic socks. Tenderfoot asserts that it should have received the award, since the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued it a Certificate of Competency (COC). We deny the protest. View Decision B-293088.2, Tenderfoot Sock Company, Inc., July 30, 2004 Decision Matter of: Tenderfoot Sock Company, Inc. File: B-293088.2 Date: July 30, 2004 Bernadine M. Solwey for the protester. Maura C. Brown, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, and John W. Klein, Esq., and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly failed to award contract to protester after Small Business Administration (SBA) issued Certificate of Competency (COC) for protester, is denied where agency prematurely-- i.e. , before selecting protesters proposal for award--referred protesters responsibility to SBA for COC review, and record shows that subsequent decision to make award to another offeror was based on price/technical tradeoff that reasonably concluded that protesters higher-technically-rated proposal did not justify award at its significantly higher price. DECISION Tenderfoot Sock Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Southern Hosiery Mills, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-NC-03-0024, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for diabetic socks. Tenderfoot asserts that it should have received the award, since the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued it a Certificate of Competency (COC). We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixedprice requirements contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, for diabetic socks. Offerors were required to submit product samples that were to be evaluated by experts in treating VAs elderly diabetic population and other patients at risk of limb-threatening foot problems. The evaluation was to consist of an initial determination of whether the offered items met the minimum requirements and, for those found acceptable, an evaluation under three factors--technical, price and quality/past performance (in descending order of importance). Award was to be made, without discussions, to the offeror whose proposal would be most advantageous to the government, that is, on a best value basis. The agency received proposals from 32 offerors, including Tenderfoot and Southern. The technical evaluation panel (TEP), which included two doctors of podiatry and a chief of prosthetics trained as an orthotist, evaluated each proposed sock. Agency Report (AR) at 3. The TEP rejected a significant number of socks in the initial evaluation and then evaluated those remaining. The final evaluation for Tenderfoot and Southern was as follows: Tenderfoot Southern Technical Very Good Acceptable Price $3,782,400 $1,572,000 Past Performance Highly Acceptable Acceptable The contracting specialist initially considered Tenderfoot and other offerors for the award based on their technical ratings. Prior to making an award determination, however, since the contracting specialist was unable to make a financial responsibility determination as to Tenderfoot, she obtained additional information from Tenderfoot and then referred the matter to SBA for a COC review. At the same time she made the referral, another offeror, Apex Foot Health Industries, filed a protest with our Office challenging the rejection of its offered socks. The procurement was suspended until issuance of our decision denying Apexs protest. See Apex Foot Health Indus. , B293088, Jan. 23, 2004, 2004 CPD 30. During this delay, SBA completed its review and issued a COC to Tenderfoot. After Apexs protest was denied and the procurement resumed, the contracting specialist reviewed the TEPs evaluations of Tenderfoots and Southerns socks and found no quality differences between them sufficient to justify Tenderfoots significantly higher price. She then conducted a tradeoff analysis between Southern and each of the other offerors, concluded that Southern represented the best value, and recommended that it receive the award. The contracting officer agreed with the recommendation and awarded Southern the contract. This protest followed. Tenderfoot asserts that VA had determined that Tenderfoot was in line for the award, as evidenced by its referral of the firms responsibility to SBA for a COC review, which occurs only where the agency has identified the offeror otherwise in line for award, but has found the firm nonresponsible.