B-299237, Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc., March 6, 2007

B-299237 Mar 06, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc., a small business, protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Hatch Worldwide Imports under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QY-06-R-0004, for combat gloves. Hawkeye alleges that the award was improper because the awardee's price was unreasonably high. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299237, Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc., March 6, 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: Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc. File: B-299237 Date: March 6, 2007 Marc Lamer, Esq., Kostos and Lamer, PC, for the protester. Vera Meza, Esq., and Srikanti Dixit, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest by small business that agency improperly awarded small business set-aside contract to unreasonably high-priced offeror is denied where set-aside price was lower than government estimate and within range of small business prices received. DECISION Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc., a small business, protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Hatch Worldwide Imports under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QY-06-R-0004, for combat gloves. Hawkeye alleges that the award was improper because the awardee's price was unreasonably high. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on February 22, 2006, contemplated the award of two contracts: 50 percent of the requirement would be set aside for award to a small business, while the other 50 percent would be awarded on an unrestricted basis. Each awardee would receive an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a guaranteed minimum of 60,000 pairs of gloves, and a maximum of 250,000 pairs. The awards were made on a –best value— basis using five evaluation criteria: technical, management, past performance, price, and subcontracting plan. The technical criteria combined were significantly more important than price. Under the small business set-aside portion of the requirement, the agency received eight proposals, including Hawkeye's and Hatch's. The agency subsequently decided not to include Hawkeye's proposal in the competitive range because the firm's product demonstration sample was found to contain numerous weaknesses and deficiencies. Two proposals were included in the competitive range, and the agency ultimately made award to Hatch based on its lower price--$8,832,500 ($35.33 each for 250,000 pairs). Under the unrestricted portion of the requirement, the agency received four proposals, including one from Hawkeye, offering different gloves from those it proposed under the set-aside. The agency determined that Hawkeye's proposal provided the best value to the government, and thus made award to Hawkeye for the unrestricted portion of the requirement at a price of $5,975,000 ($23.90 each). After learning of the award to Hatch, Hawkeye filed an agency-level protest, asserting that the award for the small business set-aside portion was improper because Hatch's price, which was approximately 48 percent higher than Hawkeye's contract price, was unreasonably high. The agency dismissed Hawkeye's protest on the grounds that it was untimely and that Hawkeye was not an interested party to challenge the small business set'aside award. Hawkeye then filed this protest with our Office. Hawkeye essentially contends that the contract awarded to Hatch was not awarded at a fair market price, that the set-aside thus should be withdrawn, and that the agency should purchase the full requirement under Hawkeye's contract. As a preliminary matter, the agency asserts--as the contracting officer found in dismissing Hawkeye's agency-level protest--that Hawkeye is not an interested party to protest the award to Hatch because Hawkeye's proposal was properly eliminated from the small business competition, and there was another firm in the competitive range; that firm, not Hawkeye, would be in line for award if Hawkeye's protest were sustained. In this regard, a party will not be deemed to have the necessary economic interest to maintain a protest if it would not be in line for award if its protest were sustained. See 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.0(a) (2006); Eagle Mktg. Group, B'242527, May 13, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 459 at 2. This argument is without merit. While the agency found Hawkeye's set'aside proposal unacceptable, Hawkeye has challenged the reasonableness of Hatch's price, not the rejection of its own proposal.