B-299058; B-299058.2, OK Produce; Coast Citrus Distributors, February 2, 2007

B-299058; B-299058.2, OK Produce; Coast Citrus Distributors, February 2, 2007 TITLE: B-299058; B-299058.2, OK Produce; Coast Citrus Distributors, February 2, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299058; B-299058.2 DATE: February 2, 2007 ***************************************************************************** B-299058; B-299058.2, OK Produce; Coast Citrus Distributors, February 2, 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: OK Produce; Coast Citrus Distributors File: B-299058; B-299058.2 Date: February 2, 2007 Mark A. McAndrew, Esq., and Philip J. Truax, Esq., Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, for the protesters. Christopher Kim, Esq., and Lorinda D. Franco, Esq., Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, and Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP, for Coast Produce Company, 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. Protests of evaluation of proposals and source selection are denied where record shows agency's evaluation and awards were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's terms; protesters' mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation and selection does not show they are unreasonable. 2. Protests 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 are denied where record shows the individual did not assist in the preparation of the solicitation and that there is no reason to believe inside information was shared with the awardee. DECISION OK Produce and Coast Citrus Distributors protest the award of two (of three) contracts to Coast Produce Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDECO2-06-R-0009, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for fresh fruits and vegetables (produce) for resale at commissaries located in DeCA's west region. (The Area 6, Group 1 award covers 8 commissaries in California and Nevada; the Group 2 award covers 22 commissaries in California, Arizona and Nevada; and the Group 3 award, not challenged here, covers 5 commissaries in Hawaii.) OK Produce and Coast Citrus contend that the agency's evaluation of the proposals and the award decisions are unreasonable. The protesters also contend that the awardee benefited from an improper competitive advantage by hiring a former DeCA commissary produce manager as a consultant. We deny the protests. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside on June 16, 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, 45. 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 significantly more important than past performance (including subfactors for product delivery, quality history/customer satisfaction, and business relations); technical capability and past performance combined were significantly more important than price. RFP amend. 2, at 13. The RFP provided technical specifications and performance requirements, and emphasized that offerors' technical proposals were to detail the firms' capabilities to perform in accordance with the solicitation's terms. 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 20-mile radius of the commissary location (excluding membership clubs and convenience type stores), called Market Basket Pricing. RFP amend. 2, at 8. Each offeror also was to propose unit prices for core and non-core produce items reflecting application of its proposed minimum percentage of patron savings. Unit prices were to be reviewed for reasonableness and realism, and to assess the offeror's understanding of the use of the minimum percentage of patron savings percentage. RFP amend.