B-296534, National Beef Packing Company, September 1, 2005

B-296534 Sep 01, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights National Beef Packing Company (National) protests the award of contracts to Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation (Cargill) and Washington Beef, LLC (Washington) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-05-R-0001, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) for provision of beef products. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated offerors' technical proposals and past performance, failed to adequately document the evaluations, improperly waived a delivery schedule requirement for Washington, held improper discussions with Washington, and conducted an improper cost/technical trade-off in making the source selection. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296534, National Beef Packing Company, September 1, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: National Beef Packing Company File: B-296534 Date: September 1, 2005 James H. Roberts, III, Esq., and Carrol H. Kinsey, Jr., Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC LLP, for the protester. David F. Dowd, Esq., William L. Olsen, Esq., and Patricia H. Becker, Esq., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, for Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation; and Robert H. Koehler, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for Washington Beef, LLC, the intervenors. Elliot J. Clark, Jr., Esq., Defense Commissary Agency, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Challenge to technical and past performance evaluation scores is denied where the agency's evaluation of proposals was reasonable and is adequately supported by the record. 2. Protest that agency waived mandatory delivery schedule for an awardee is denied where the solicitation allowed offerors to propose alternate delivery schedules. 3. Agency's exchanges with an awardee after receipt of proposals were clarifications, which resolved a minor error, and did not constitute discussions. DECISION National Beef Packing Company (National) protests the award of contracts to Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation (Cargill) and Washington Beef, LLC (Washington) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-05-R-0001, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) for provision of beef products. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated offerors' technical proposals and past performance, failed to adequately document the evaluations, improperly waived a delivery schedule requirement for Washington, held improper discussions with Washington, and conducted an improper cost/technical trade-off in making the source selection. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to provide beef products for DECA commissary stores located in the western region of the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii. The RFP anticipated award of fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, requirements-type contracts for each of the seven groups of commissaries that comprise the agency's western region. The RFP stated that separate awards would be made for each of the seven groups and that offerors were eligible to receive multiple awards. The base performance period for each contract is 1 year, with two 1-year option periods. The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of technical capability and past performance, which were equally important, and price, which was equal in importance to the two combined non-price factors. The technical capability evaluation factor had four subfactors: experience, production/distribution, quality control, and additional support/promotion; the first three subfactors were of equal importance, and the last subfactor was –slightly less important.— The past performance evaluation factor had four subfactors: timeliness of deliveries, conformance with specifications, customer satisfaction, and business relations; the first three subfactors were of equal importance, and the last subfactor was –slightly less important.— The RFP required offerors to propose prices for various types of beef products based on estimated quantities for each type. The contract schedule requires weekly deliveries to the commissaries in each group on specific days of the week during specific delivery times. Seven offerors submitted proposals by the initial proposal closing date. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Of the seven groups within the western region, National's proposal addressed groups one through five. Of the five groups for which National submitted proposals, Cargill submitted proposals for groups one through four, and Washington submitted proposals for groups one and five. The agency conducted initial evaluation of proposals and concluded that all offerors' proposals were technically acceptable and within the competitive range.