Paraclete Armor & Equipment, Inc., B-293509, February 24, 2004

B-293509 Feb 24, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Paraclete protests that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. The RFP advised that the technical factor (which consisted of 20 evaluated criteria) was more important than the past performance factor. That the technical and past performance factors combined were more important than price. That the vest systems were to have "a dual quick release system that allows the operator easy access to the quick release handle. " and were to "be capable of being worn by [special operations force] operators under the parachute harness without causing any increased risk of injury during static airborne operations.". The samples/proposals were evaluated. Eagle's revised proposal was evaluated as "green/acceptable" under the technical factor and "low risk" under the past performance factor. View Decision Paraclete Armor & Equipment, Inc., B-293509, February 24, 2004 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Paraclete Armor & Equipment, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Eagle Industries under request for proposals (RFP) No. USZA22-03-R-0027, issued by the Department of the Army, for quick release body armor vest systems. Paraclete protests that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable, and evidenced bias against Paraclete and unequal treatment of the offerors. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the government based upon the evaluation factors of technical, past performance, and price. The RFP advised that the technical factor (which consisted of 20 evaluated criteria) was more important than the past performance factor, and that the technical and past performance factors combined were more important than price. The RFP set forth detailed technical requirements for the vest systems, providing, for example, that the vest systems were to have "a dual quick release system that allows the operator easy access to the quick release handle," and were to "be capable of being worn by [special operations force] operators under the parachute harness without causing any increased risk of injury during static airborne operations." RFP at 23. The RFP contained detailed instructions regarding the preparation of proposals, and required the submission of one sample vest system per size (small, medium, large and extra large) for evaluation, as well as written technical, past performance, and business/price proposals. The agency received sample vest systems and proposals from three offerors, including Eagle and Paraclete. The samples/proposals were evaluated, discussions conducted, and the offerors' responses to the discussion questions and proposal revisions evaluated. Eagle's revised proposal was evaluated as "green/acceptable" under the technical factor and "low risk" under the past performance factor, at an evaluated price of $6,191,110. Specifically, the agency evaluated Eagle's proposal as "blue/excellent" under 3 of the evaluation criteria comprising the technical evaluation factor, and "green/acceptable" under the remaining 17 criteria comprising the technical evaluation factor. Paraclete's proposal was evaluated as "green/acceptable" under the technical factor and "low risk" under the past performance factor, at an evaluated price of $[DELETED]. The agency evaluated Paraclete's proposal as "green/acceptable" under 18 of the evaluation criteria comprising the technical evaluation factor, and "yellow/marginally acceptable" under the remaining 2 criteria. Agency Report (AR), Tab 33, Post-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum, at 3-4. The contracting officer/source selection authority selected Eagle's slightly higher-priced proposal for award, explaining that while Paraclete's and Eagle's proposals were both evaluated as technically acceptable, Paraclete's proposal "still contained some elements of risk." AR, Tab 32, Source Selection Decision, at 1. Paraclete first argues that the evaluation of its proposal under the technical factor was unreasonable. In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 223 at 4. The protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. UNICCO Gov't Servs., Inc., B-277658, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para.