B-298751.5, Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC, May 1, 2007

B-298751.5 May 01, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC protests the award of a contract to Military Produce Group, LLC (MPG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-06-R-0005, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for fresh fruits and vegetables for resale at commissaries in its eastern region; Philadelphia protests the Area 3, Group 2 award. The protester contends that the agency should have excluded MPG from the competition based on an organizational conflict of interest; according to Philadelphia, MPG's performance of essentially the same work for the agency in another geographical region served as the basis for the current RFP's performance requirements. Philadelphia also contends that the past performance evaluations were unreasonable and generally challenges the reasonableness of the agency's determination that MPG's higher-rated technical proposal and lower proposed cost savings offered the best value to the agency. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298751.5, Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC, May 1, 2007 Decision Matter of: Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC File: B-298751.5 Date: May 1, 2007 Ellis M. Fleisher for the protester. Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., Vandeventer Black LLP, for Military Produce Group, LLC, an intervenor. 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 that awardee has an organizational conflict of interest arising from performance of contracts for similar work is denied where there is no support in the record for allegation that the awardee participated in drafting the performance requirements for the current procurement. 2. Protest of evaluation of proposals and award is denied where record shows evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC protests the award of a contract to Military Produce Group, LLC (MPG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-06-R-0005, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for fresh fruits and vegetables for resale at commissaries in its eastern region; Philadelphia protests the Area 3, Group 2 award. The protester contends that the agency should have excluded MPG from the competition based on an organizational conflict of interest; according to Philadelphia, MPG's performance of essentially the same work for the agency in another geographical region served as the basis for the current RFP's performance requirements. Philadelphia also contends that the past performance evaluations were unreasonable and generally challenges the reasonableness of the agency's determination that MPG's higher-rated technical proposal and lower proposed cost savings offered the best value to the agency.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP was issued as a small business set-aside on March 20, 2006 for the award of a requirements-type, indefinite-delivery contract (with a 2-year base period and two 12'month option periods) for each of several groups of commissaries. 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 capability (including subfactors for experience, quality program, production capability/distribution plan, and additional support/promotion plan) was to be significantly more important than past performance; technical capability and past performance combined were to be significantly more important than price. Id. at 28. The evaluation of past performance was to assess the probability of successful performance of the work required under the solicitation. Id.The evaluation of price was to be based on the proposed minimum percentage of patron savings (reflecting commissary savings compared to pricing at comparable commercial operations). Id. amend. 5, at 7. Proposed prices for produce items were to be reviewed for reasonableness, realism, and to assess the offeror's understanding of the application of the proposed savings percentage. Id. at 15. Twelve proposals were received under the RFP for Area 3, Group 2; all but one were included in the competitive range for discussions and revised proposals were received and evaluated. An initial award to Four Seasons Produce, Inc. was terminated by the agency due to a determination by the Small Business Administration that the firm was other than a small business.