B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3, SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC, November 29, 2006

B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3, SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC, November 29, 2006 TITLE: B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3, SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC, November 29, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3 DATE: November 29, 2006 *********************************************************************************** B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3, SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC, November 29, 2006 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: SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC File: B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3 Date: November 29, 2006 William A. Shook, Esq., Kelley P. Doran, Esq., Matthew Koehl, Esq., and Victor G. Vogel, Esq., Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP, for the protester. Harold G. Bailey, Jr., Esq., Richard D. Gluck, Esq., Aaron W. Knights, Esq., and Robert A. Boraks, Esq., Garvey Schubert Barer, for Spokane Produce, Inc., an intervenor. Elliot J. Clark, Jr., Esq., Defense Commissary Agency, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging proposal evaluation and source selection decision is denied where record shows evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation terms and applicable procurement regulations. DECISION SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC protests the award of a contract to Spokane Produce, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-06-R-0007, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for providing fresh fruits and vegetables to commissaries located in DeCA's west region (Area 4). SCS argues that DeCA improperly evaluated its proposal and that the best value award decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. DeCA operates commissary stores, which provide for the sale of groceries and household supplies to members of the military and authorized patrons. On April 21, 2006, DeCA issued the subject solicitation as a small business set-aside for the procurement of fresh fruits and vegetables for 14 commissaries located in DeCA's west region (Area 4). Area 4 was divided into Groups 1 and 2. Group 1 consisted of nine commissaries located on military installations in Washington, Montana, and Idaho, and Group 2 consisted of five commissaries located on installations in Alaska.[1] The RFP provided for the award of individual contracts for Groups 1 and 2, each for a base term of 2 years, with two 12-month option periods. Only the Group 1 award is at issue in this protest. Pursuant to the RFP, award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government based upon the evaluation factors of technical capability, past performance, and price. The solicitation specified that technical capability was significantly more important than past performance, and when combined, technical capability and past performance were significantly more important than price. RFP amend. 4, at 14. Under the technical capability factor, the solicitation included the following four subfactors: (1) experience, (2) quality program, (3) production capability/distribution plan, and (4) additional support/promotion plan, which was "slightly less important" than the other three equally weighted subfactors. The past performance factor was comprised of the following three subfactors: (1) product delivery, (2) quality history/customer satisfaction, and (3) business relations, which was "slightly less important" than the other two equally weighted subfactors. Under the terms of the RFP, technical capability was to be evaluated based on narratives and information submitted by the offerors in their technical proposals and past performance was to be evaluated based on responses to past performance surveys provided by the offerors' references and any other past performance information available to the contracting officer. RFP amend. 4, at 14-15. Due to the inherent variability of prices for fresh fruits and vegetables, the RFP did not seek fixed prices for produce; rather, offerors were required to propose what the solicitation termed the offeror's "percentage of patron savings," which was defined as follows: 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 20-mile radius of the commissary location (excluding membership clubs and convenience type stores), called Market Basket Pricing. . . .