SSI Technology, Inc.

B-412765.2 Jul 13, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SSI Technology, Inc. (SSI), a small business located in Madison Heights, Michigan, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Five Star Associates, Inc., of Bangor, Pennsylvania, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7L7-16-Q-0075, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency-Land and Maritime (DLA-L&M), for battery chargers. SSI challenges the evaluation of Five Star's past performance and DLA's best-value source selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  SSI Technology, Inc. File:  B-412765.2 Date:  July 13, 2016 Robert A. Bloom for the protester. Adam J. Heer, Esq., and John R. Hart, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of awardee’s past performance and agency’s best‑value determination is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION SSI Technology, Inc. (SSI), a small business located in Madison Heights, Michigan, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Five Star Associates, Inc., of Bangor, Pennsylvania, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7L7-16-Q-0075, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency‑Land and Maritime (DLA‑L&M), for battery chargers.  SSI challenges the evaluation of Five Star’s past performance and DLA’s best‑value source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, which was set aside for small businesses, was issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13 to vendors holding DLA eProcurement Automated Simplified Acquisition contracts, and sought delivery of 195 battery chargers (national stock number 6130‑01‑267‑3309) within 244 days.  RFQ at 1‑2, 10‑11; Master Solicitation, Revision 31, Dec. 15, 2015 (Master Solicitation), at 1.  The RFQ incorporated the eProcurement master solicitation by reference, which, as relevant here, provides for the “manual evaluation” of quotations and issuance of the purchase order on a best‑value basis, considering price, delivery, and past performance.[1]  RFQ at 2; Master Solicitation at 5.  Vendors were to submit quotations electronically using DLA’s Internet Bid Board System.  Master Solicitation at 2. With respect to the past performance evaluation factor, relevant here, the master solicitation incorporates, by reference, Department of Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.213-7000, Notice to Prospective Suppliers on Use of Past Performance Information Retrieval System—Statistical Reporting in Past Performance Evaluations, as well as Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive (DLAD) clause 52.215‑9003, Use of Past Performance Information Retrieval System—Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR) Information in Past Performance Evaluation.  Id. at 6, 9‑10.  The two solicitation provisions are discussed in relevant part below. The agency received 10 quotations ranging in price from $745 to $2,583 per battery charger.  Agency Report (AR) at 2; Tab 7, Abstract of Quotations, at 1-5.[2]  Nine of the 10 vendors, including SSI and Five Star, proposed delivery within the required 244‑day timeframe.  AR, Tab 15, Simplified Acquisition Award Documentation (SAAD), at 1‑3. A DLA contracting officer evaluated quotations based on vendor prices, delivery terms, and past performance, and performed a best‑value tradeoff.  Id.  The contracting officer found that while Five Star did not quote the lowest price per unit, the vendor’s better past performance indicators (namely, its DLA-L&M composite delivery score, delinquency rate, and on‑time delivery rate), provided DLA with greater confidence that Five Star would be able to successfully deliver the battery chargers by the vendor’s proposed delivery date.  See id. at 3. The contracting officer concluded that Five Star’s quotation provided the best value to the government and DLA issued the purchase order to the vendor for $146,250.  Id.; AR, Tab 2, Purchase Order No. SPE7L7‑16‑M‑1823.  This protest followed.[3] DISCUSSION Past Performance SSI protests DLA’s evaluation of Five Star’s past performance, arguing that it was irrational, unsupported by the record, and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation.  See Protest at 2.  SSI points out that Five Star does not have any PPIRS‑SR delivery scores,[4] thus, according to the protester, the award was based on DLA’s improper favorable assessment of Five Star’s past performance, because the solicitation provided that vendors without a PPIRS‑SR delivery score could not be rated favorably or unfavorably.[5]  See Comments at 1.