B-297168, Bernard Cap Company, Inc., November 8, 2005

B-297168 Nov 08, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bernard Cap Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Kingform Cap Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG23-04-R-PUD626, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG), Uniform Distribution Center, for quantities of officer and enlisted combination hats/caps and covers for males and females. Bernard, which submitted a significantly lower priced proposal for the male items only, challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's "best value" determination that resulted in the award to Kingform, which submitted a higher technically rated, higher priced proposal for the male items. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297168, Bernard Cap Company, Inc., November 8, 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: Bernard Cap Company, Inc. File: B-297168 Date: November 8, 2005 Scott P. Pavelle, Esq., for the protester. Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, for Kingform Cap Company, Inc., an intervenor. Isaac Johnson, Jr., Esq., Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and where the solicitation provided that the technical evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price, the agency reasonably selected for award a firm submitting a higher technically rated, higher priced proposal. DECISION Bernard Cap Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Kingform Cap Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG23-04-R-PUD626, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG), UniformDistributionCenter, for quantities of officer and enlisted combination hats/caps and covers for males and females. Bernard, which submitted a significantly lower priced proposal for the male items only, challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's –best value— determination that resulted in the award to Kingform, which submitted a higher technically rated, higher priced proposal for the male items. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on December 17, 2004 as a small business set-aside and stated that the agency –reserve[d] the right to award multiple . . . fixed[-]price Indefinite'Delivery, Indefinite[-]Quantity contracts for one, varied or all items— listed in the schedule for a 5-year period to the offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represented the best value to the government, considering technical evaluation factors and price. RFP sect. B.1. The RFP advised offerors that they could submit proposals –for all items or select items— listed in the schedule. Id.The RFP advised that the agency intended to make the award(s) on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors and subfactors: (1) manufacturing approach/capability (existing manufacturing process, existing facilities and equipment, and manufacturing plan); (2) relevant past performance (product quality, timeliness, business practices, cost control, and customer satisfaction); (3) relevant experience (evidence of at least 5 years of demonstrated relevant experience in manufacturing uniform items from standard specification documents); and (4) quality control plan (receiving and components, cutting room operations, assembly area operations, final inspections, and packaging, shipping, and handling operations). (The technical evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance and the subfactors were of equal importance.) With respect to price, the RFP stated that an offeror's price would be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.404-1(b) and that adequate price competition was expected. The RFP further stated that all technical evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. RFP sect. M.2. The RFP advised offerors that their proposals –shall clearly and concisely— describe the offeror's response to the RFP requirements, noting, for example, that the use of general or vague statements such as –standard procedures will be used— or –good engineering practices will be employed— would not be acceptable. RFP sect. L.6. With respect to the male items, three firms, including Bernard (the incumbent contractor for the male items) and Kingform, submitted proposals.