B-299366.3, B-299366.4, Benchmade Knife Co., Inc., July 16, 2007

B-299366.3, B-299366.4, Benchmade Knife Co., Inc., July 16, 2007 TITLE: B-299366.3, B-299366.4, Benchmade Knife Co., Inc., July 16, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299366.3, B-299366.4 DATE: July 16, 2007 **************************************************************** B-299366.3, B-299366.4, Benchmade Knife Co., Inc., July 16, 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: Benchmade Knife Co., Inc. File: B-299366.3, B-299366.4 Date: July 16, 2007 Terrence M. O'Connor, Esq., and Seth C. Berenzweig, Esq., Albo & Oblon, LLP, for the protester. David T. Ralston, Jr., Esq., Philip A. Nacke, Esq., and Frank S. Murray, Esq., Foley & Lardner, LLP, for Gerber Legendary Blades, an intervenor. Gail L. Booth, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency, in the course of reevaluating proposals, used an improper time period to recalculate an offeror's Automated Best Value System (ABVS) score is denied where the record supports the agency's contention that it used the same ABVS scores in the initial evaluation and the reevaluation. DECISION Benchmade Knife Co., Inc. protests the award of a contract to Gerber Legendary Blades under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPM7LX-07-R-0001, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center-Columbus (DSCC) for two combat knives. The protester argues that the agency considered ABVS scores[1] for the awardee that included information on past delivery performance that was current as of the date of the reevaluation and not the initial evaluation, contrary to the RFP terms.[2] We deny the protest. The RFP, issued by DSCC on November 2, 2006, with an eventual closing date of November 17, identified two required combat knives by national stock numbers (NSN) 1095-01-456-4457 (4457) and 1095-01-466-8569 (8569); the former is the subject of this protest. The RFP stated that the agency would select for award the proposal that represented the best value to the government, based upon--in descending order of importance--a comparative assessment of the offerors' prices, past performance, proposed delivery, socioeconomic support, Mentoring Business Agreement Program, and Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act support. Under past performance evaluation factors, the RFP stated that the agency would consider the offerors' ABVS scores as well as any other available and relevant past performance data. With respect to ABVS scores, section L2 of the RFP provided that for purposes of calculating delivery delinquencies, the rating period would exclude the most recent 60 days; for assessing quality complaints, the rating period would exclude the most recent 30 days. All non-price factors combined were considered approximately equal in importance to price. The RFP stated that "[a]ward will be made on this Form [33], or on Standard Form [(SF)] 26, or by other authorized official written notice," RFP at 1, and that the government could make either a single award or "split" awards, i.e., a separate award for each of the two knives. Id. at 32. Gerber and Benchmade submitted the only timely offers that were in the competitive range and subsequently evaluated for award. The two proposals differed in price by less than one percent. The agency evaluated both proposals for past performance, and, the agency states, it used the ABVS scores from December 7. The contracting officer determined that Gerber's offer for NSN 4457 represented the best value to the government and proceeded with award to Gerber on December 21, using SF 26.[3] Benchmade protested that award to our Office. The agency, pointing to errors in the original evaluation of Gerber's past performance, stated that it would take corrective action and reevaluate "the offers received." Letter from Agency to GAO, Feb. 5, 2007 at 1. We then dismissed the protest as academic. On April 5, 2007, the contracting officer completed the reevaluation and again determined that Gerber's proposal offered the best value to the agency. The debriefing letter provided to the protester stated that the "[e]valuation was based on the most current information available at the time of award." Agency Report, Tab 7, Letter from Agency to Protester, Apr.