Noble Supply and Logistics

B-410788 Feb 19, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Graybar, of Lanham, Maryland, protests the exclusion of its proposals from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPM8E3-14-R-0005, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency under the Maintenance, Repair, and Operations Tailored Logistics Support Prime Vendor Program. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposals under each of the evaluation factors. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Graybar File: B-410788 Date: February 19, 2015 Ronald Drescher for the protester. Nicole M. Franchetti, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of elimination of protester’s proposals from the competitive range is denied where the record shows that agency reasonably concluded that the proposals were not among the most highly rated. DECISION Graybar, of Lanham, Maryland, protests the exclusion of its proposals from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPM8E3-14-R-0005, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency under the Maintenance, Repair, and Operations Tailored Logistics Support Prime Vendor Program. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposals under each of the evaluation factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP provided for award of two 5-year, fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for maintenance, repair, operations supply services, and related incidental services, with one award in each of two zones in the South Central Region of the United States. RFP at 6, 29. The guaranteed minimum contract value for Zone 1 (Texas, Louisiana) was $3 million and the maximum was $225 million, while the minimum for Zone 2 (Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arkansas) was $2 million and the maximum was $157.5 million. Id. at 6. Offerors could propose for either or both of the zones. Award was to be made to the offerors whose proposals represented the best value to the government considering the following factors: past performance; technical merit, including subfactors (in descending order of importance) for product sourcing, distribution/delivery, and socio-economic objectives; and price. Id. at 71. Past performance was more important than technical merit, while the non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id. With respect to past performance, the RFP advised that the government would evaluate the degree to which the offeror met the terms of delivery, quality standards, socio-economic goals, and was able to achieve customer satisfaction in its performance of past contracts. Regarding technical merit, the RFP required offerors to provide “written evidence” for all carriers, distribution centers, and consolidation points that the offerors planned to utilize in the performance of the contract or that were referenced in the proposal. Id. at 62. Offerors also were required to describe their purchasing system, in particular the policies and procedures that ensure that all purchase orders and subcontracts contain all flow down clauses, and that proper types of subcontracts are selected. Id. Graybar was one of several offerors to submit proposals; the protester offered the same three past performance references for both zones. Graybar Zone 1 Proposal at 5; Graybar Zone 2 Proposal at 5. The agency assigned Graybar’s proposals for both zones a rating of satisfactory confidence for past performance, with no strengths and the following weaknesses: failure to meet the proposed fill rate; failure to meet certain socio-economic subcontracting goals; failure to meet on-time delivery goals; and failure to submit information on its contractual subcontracting goals and the actual subcontracting performance. Zone 1 Technical Evaluation Report 64-72; Zone 2 Technical Evaluation Report at 64-72. Graybar’s proposals were evaluated as acceptable under the product sourcing subfactor, with two strengths and the following two weaknesses: the proposals did not address policies and procedures to ensure that the purchase orders and subcontracts contain all flow down clauses; and the proposals did not address procedures to ensure that proper types of subcontracts are selected. Zone 1 Technical Evaluation Report at 76; Zone 2 Technical Evaluation Report at 76. Graybar’s proposals were evaluated as acceptable under the distribution/delivery subfactor, with one strength and one deficiency--the proposals did not provide written evidence of all proposed carriers, distribution centers, and consolidation points. Zone 1 Technical Evaluation Report at 80; Zone 2 Technical Evaluation Report at 80.