B-298751, Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC, December 8, 2006

B-298751 Dec 08, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC protests the award of a contract to Four Seasons Produce, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-06-R-0005, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for fresh fruits and vegetables (produce) for resale at commissaries located in DeCA's East Region (Area 2, Group 2). Philadelphia contends that the agency improperly failed to give its technical proposal additional credit, and unreasonably determined that Four Seasons' higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal offered the best value to the government. Philadelphia also contends that the awardee received an unfair competitive advantage by hiring a former DeCA commissary produce manager as a consultant. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298751, Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC, December 8, 2006 Decision Matter of: Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC File: B-298751 Date: December 8, 2006 Ellis M. Fleisher for the protester. David P. Metzger, Esq., and Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Four Seasons Produce, Inc., an intervenor. Jay P. Manning, Esq., and Elliot J. Clark, Jr., Esq., Defense Commissary Agency, 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 1. Protest challenging proposal evaluation and source selection is denied where record shows evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with solicitation; protester's mere disagreement with agency's determination that a lack of detail in the firm's proposal did not warrant assigning full evaluation credit to the proposal is insufficient to show that the evaluation was unreasonable. 2. Protest that awardee obtained an unfair competitive advantage by hiring as a consultant a former government employee who had served as a technical evaluator for a previous procurement is denied where record shows that the individual did not assist in the preparation of the current solicitation and that there is no reason to believe inside information was shared with awardee. DECISION Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC protests the award of a contract to Four Seasons Produce, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-06-R-0005, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for fresh fruits and vegetables (produce) for resale at commissaries located in DeCA's East Region (Area 3, Group 2).[1] Philadelphia contends that the agency improperly failed to give its technical proposal additional credit, and unreasonably determined that Four Seasons' higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal offered the best value to the government. Philadelphia also contends that the awardee received an unfair competitive advantage by hiring a former DeCA commissary produce manager as a consultant.[2] We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside on March 20, 2006, contemplated the award of a requirements type, indefinite-delivery contract by regional group of commissaries; each group's contract was to have a 2-year base period with two 12'month option periods. RFP at 28, 50. Award was to be made to the firm that submitted the proposal deemed to offer the best value to the agency considering technical capability, past performance, and price. Technical capabilty (including subfactors for experience, quality program, production capability/distribution plan, and additional support/promotion plan) was significantly more important than past performance; technical capability and past performance combined were significantly more important than price. Id. at 28. The RFP provided technical specifications and performance requirements for the provision of produce, and emphasized that offerors' technical proposals were to detail the firms' capabilities, including all quality control procedures and back-up plans (regarding, for example, food safety, product recalls, sanitation, and pest management). Id. at 15-27. For the evaluation of price, offerors were to propose a minimum percentage of patron savings, defined in the RFP as: the average amount the contractor will save the commissary patron on all core items over the selling price of the same or similar items from comparable commercial operations within the local commuting area and/or geographical area within a 25-mile radius of the commissary location (excluding membership clubs and convenience type stores). Id. amend. 5, at 7. Each offeror was to propose unit prices for core and non-core produce items reflecting application of its proposed patron savings percentage.