Patriot Solutions, LLC

B-413779 Dec 22, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Patriot Solutions, LLC, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, a small business, protests the award of contracts to Wonder State Box Company, of Conway, Arkansas, and Sigma Supply, Inc., of Hot Springs, Arkansas, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. CT2211-16, issued by Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR) for various corrugated containers. The protester contends that the agency failed to perform a best-value tradeoff as stated in the solicitation, and instead selected the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) offers for contract awards. We sustain the protest. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Patriot Solutions, LLC File:  B-413779 Date:  December 22, 2016 John Tellier, for the protester. Steven Thaler, Esq., and Marianne Cantwell, Esq., Department of Justice, Federal Prison Industries, Inc., for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly converted the best-value tradeoff competition set forth in the solicitation into a lowest-priced, technically acceptable competition is sustained where the record shows that the agency did not perform a best-value tradeoff and instead selected the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offers for award. DECISION Patriot Solutions, LLC, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, a small business, protests the award of contracts to Wonder State Box Company, of Conway, Arkansas, and Sigma Supply, Inc., of Hot Springs, Arkansas, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. CT2211-16, issued by Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR)[1] for various corrugated containers.  The protester contends that the agency failed to perform a best-value tradeoff as stated in the solicitation, and instead selected the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) offers for contract awards. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2016, UNICOR issued the RFP as a small business set-aside using the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subparts 12.6, Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items, and 13.5, Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items.  The RFP contemplated award of a three-year base period, fixed-price requirements type contract for various corrugated containers.  RFP at 10.  Proposals were to be evaluated considering the following factors:  past performance, technical,[2] and price.  Id. at 20.  Award was to be made on a best-value basis, and the past performance and technical factors were significantly more important than price.  Id. As relevant here, past performance was to be evaluated using five factors:  (1) experience; (2) quality of item supplied; (3) on-time delivery; (4) adherence to shipping instructions; and (5) customer service/business relations performance.  RFP at 20.  Regarding the evaluation of experience, the RFP provided that a rating of more relevant, relevant, or less relevant “will be assigned based on the offeror’s experience with like or similar awards based on product supplied, total award amount, and length of performance.”  Id.  In addition, the RFP explained that “[m]ore relevant past performance will be considered performance with less risk potential to the agency.”  Id.  The RFP provided that a rating of excellent, good, satisfactory, or poor would be assigned for the remaining factors to be evaluated under past performance, based on the submitted references and other sources available to UNICOR.  Id. The RFP required delivery of the corrugated containers to various destinations.  RFP at 3-9.  The solicitation stated that all items were to be awarded to one offeror and therefore, offerors were to submit an offer on all items.  Id.