EFS Ebrex Sarl

B-416076 Jun 04, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights EFS EBrex Sarl (Ebrex), of Geneva, Switzerland, protests the Defense Logistics Agency's award of a contract to Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc., of Stockton, California, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE300-16-R-0003 to provide subsistence prime vendor support for the military and other federally-funded customers in Japan, Singapore, Diego Garcia, and the Philippines (referred to as "zone 1"). Ebrex asserts that the agency's evaluation and source selection decision were based on unstated evaluation factors, and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We sustain the protest. We sustain the protest. View Decision 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:  EFS Ebrex SARL File:  B-416076 Date:  June 4, 2018 William E. Hughes, Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for the protester. Katherine B. McCulloch, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Michael J. Gardner, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc.; and Robert E. Korroch, Esq., William A. Wozniak, Esq., and Shayn A. Fernandez, Esq., Williams Mullen, for Food Services, Inc., the intervenors. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency applied unstated evaluation factors is sustained where agency's source selection plan established undisclosed benchmarks that a proposal must meet in order to receive a rating of acceptable or higher under the experience evaluation factor, and the agency's discussions were less than meaningful regarding those undisclosed requirements. DECISION EFS EBrex Sarl (Ebrex), of Geneva, Switzerland, protests the Defense Logistics Agency's award of a contract to Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc., of Stockton, California, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE300-16-R-0003 to provide subsistence prime vendor support for the military and other federally-funded customers in Japan, Singapore, Diego Garcia, and the Philippines (referred to as "zone 1").[1]  Ebrex asserts that the agency's evaluation and source selection decision were based on unstated evaluation factors, and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions.  We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On October 18, 2016, the agency issued RFP No. SPE300-16-R-0003, seeking proposals to provide subsistence prime vendor support for a 60-month period.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 3.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under which the awardee will deliver food and non-food items to various military customers and other authorized users.  Id. at 18. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, and established the following evaluation factors:  (1) warehouse location and capacity; (2) experience; (3) quality control, assurance, and warehouse management system/ procedures; (4) resource availability; (5) implementation and management plan; (6) past performance; and (7) price.[2]  Id. at 200-07.  Regarding this protest, the solicitation provided that, in evaluating proposals under factor 2, experience, the agency would consider the relevance of an offeror's prior experience, stating:  In establishing what is relevant for experience, consideration shall be given to those aspects of an offeror's contract history which provide the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.  Those aspects of relevancy includeexperience performing deliveries as a full line food service distributor, dollar value, and number of customers. Id. at 202.  Separate and apart from the solicitation, the agency created a source selection plan (SSP) which was not disclosed to the offerors.  In the SSP, the agency established an adjectival rating system,[3] and also established what the agency itself describes as "specific criteria that supplemented the evaluation language of the Solicitation" to assist in assigning the ratings.  AR, Mar.