B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5, Propper International, Inc., March 19, 2007

B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5, Propper International, Inc., March 19, 2007 TITLE: B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5, Propper International, Inc., March 19, 2007 BNUMBER: B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5 DATE: March 19, 2007 ******************************************************************************* B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5, Propper International, Inc., March 19, 2007 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: Propper International, Inc. File: B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5 Date: March 19, 2007 Ronald K. Henry, Esq., Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, for Tennier Industries, Inc., an intervenor. Maria Ventresca, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of evaluation of proposals and award to offeror with slightly higher-priced, higher technically rated proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Propper International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tennier Industries, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-04-R-0151, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), for all-purpose environmental camouflage system (APECS) parkas and trousers. The protester primarily contends that the past performance evaluation and source selection determination were unreasonable. The protester asserts that the agency's attempts to find past performance references for the firm's previous work were insufficient. The protester also contends that given its previous experience manufacturing and participating in the development of the APECS items, commendations it received for those efforts during part of the RFP's rating period, and its lower price, its proposal should have been considered the best value for award.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on October 4, 2004, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and 2 option years. Award was to be made to the firm that submitted the proposal deemed to offer the best value to the agency, with the technical factors combined being significantly more important than price. RFP at 90. The RFP's technical evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were: (1) product demonstration model (PDM) (including testing of each offeror's parkas, trousers and cloth for compliance with technical specifications); (2) past performance (including consideration of the firm's adherence to delivery schedules, quality of product/service, manufacturing experience, and customer satisfaction); (3) surge capacity (including capability to increase monthly production by 50 percent); (4) socioeconomic evaluation (including planned development of and participation by small businesses); (5) DLA mentoring business agreements program (including planned tutoring of and assistance from small businesses); and (6) opportunities for Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act entities (including subcontracting opportunities for qualified disabled entities). Offerors were instructed to provide detailed technical proposals to demonstrate the ability to meet the RFP's requirements; the RFP also emphasized that the failure to provide the required information could negatively impact their evaluation. The RFP emphasized the importance of the past performance evaluation, the second most important factor for award; in this regard, the RFP made clear that the agency would be assessing and relying on the awardee's demonstrated ability to timely deliver quality products requiring minimal agency oversight. Id. at 81. The past performance evaluation was to assess the efficiency of production methods and the effectiveness of quality control procedures to reduce delinquencies and administrative costs to the agency; offerors were advised that "those offerors who consistently demonstrate an ability to deliver on time while consistently improving the quality of the products they produce will receive more favorable consideration than those who do not." Id.