Carter Enterprises, LLC

B-417083.2,B-417083.3 Apr 19, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Carter Enterprises, LLC, of Brooklyn, New York, protests the award of a contract to Bethel Industries, Inc., of Jersey City, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1-16-R-0082, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for Army combat uniform trousers. Carter alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the firm's proposal and improperly made its source selection decision. We deny 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:  Carter Enterprises, LLC File:  B-417083.2; B-417083.3 Date:  April 19, 2019 Marc Lamer, Esq., Kostos and Lamer, P.C., for the protester. Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, LLC, for Bethel Industries, Inc., the intervenor. Allison Colsey Eck, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest is denied where the agency’s past performance evaluation was consistent with the record and the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest is denied where the agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis reasonably considered the features of the proposals and was made in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Carter Enterprises, LLC, of Brooklyn, New York, protests the award of a contract to Bethel Industries, Inc., of Jersey City, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1‑16‑R‑0082, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for Army combat uniform trousers.  Carter alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the firm’s proposal and improperly made its source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on July 19, 2016, for delivery of Army combat uniform coats and trousers to be performed over an 18-month base period and one 1-year option period.[1]  RFP at 1, 3.  For each performance period, the RFP provided that the agency would order between 100,000 and 400,000 trousers.  Id.  Award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering past performance, product demonstration model, and price factors.  Id. at 98-101.  The product demonstration model factor would be evaluated on a pass or fail basis.  Id. at 101.  The agency would then make its tradeoff between past performance and price.  Id. at 98.  The RFP specified that past performance was significantly more important than price.  Id. For the past performance factor, the RFP instructed offerors to describe their experience producing the same or similar items within the two years preceding the solicitation closing date (i.e., April 16, 2018).  RFP at 94; RFP, amend. 0011 at 3.  The RFP required offerors to describe the quality of items delivered and address any issues with substandard quality.  Id. at 94.  In evaluating proposals under this factor, the solicitation provided that offerors would be assigned a performance confidence assessment rating based on two equal subfactors, performance relevancy, and quality and delivery performance.  Id. at 99.  For relevancy, the agency would assess whether the record of performance involved similar scope, magnitude, and complexities as the instant requirement.  RFP at 100.  For quality and delivery performance, the agency would assess each offeror’s quality of performance and delivery performance separately.  Id. at 100-101.  The solicitation advised that both quality and delivery performance would be based on how well the offeror performed on its prior contracts, and also, as part of the instructions, provided that delivery performance would be assessed using the Past Performance Information Retrieval System--Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR) score.  Id. at 94, 100. Twelve offerors submitted proposals prior to the close of the solicitation period.  Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 6.  The agency’s evaluation produced the following relevant results:   Carter Bethel Past Performance Satisfactory Confidence Substantial Confidence --  Relevancy Relevant Very Relevant --  Quality and Delivery Performance Good / Outstanding Acceptable / Outstanding Price $61,800,000 $65,320,000 Agency Report (AR), Exhibit 11, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2.  After comparing proposals, the source selection authority (SSA) selected Bethel’s proposal as offering the best value.  AR, Exhibit 11, SSDD at 2.  When comparing Carter’s and Bethel’s proposals directly, the SSA considered Bethel’s proposal as superior.  Id.