High Noon Unlimited Inc. (M6785419R1549)

B-417830 Nov 15, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights High Noon Unlimited, Inc., of Holiday, Florida, protests the award of a contract to High Speed Gear, Inc., of Swansboro, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-19-R-1549, issued by the United States Marine Corps for a quantity of rifle magazine pouches. High Noon argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  High Noon Unlimited, Inc. File:  B-417830 Date:  November 15, 2019 George B. Inabinet, III, High Noon Unlimited, Inc., for the protester. Major Will A. Schmitt, Graeme Henderson, Esq., Lisa L. Baker, Esq., and Ellen Clark, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is sustained where record shows that awardee’s proposal may have failed to meet mandatory solicitation requirements. DECISION High Noon Unlimited, Inc., of Holiday, Florida, protests the award of a contract to High Speed Gear, Inc., of Swansboro, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-19-R-1549, issued by the United States Marine Corps for a quantity of rifle magazine pouches.  High Noon argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a fixed-unit-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to provide a quantity of rifle magazine pouches.  The RFP included three “go/no-go” considerations (not relevant here), and also provided that proposals found acceptable under the go/no-go factors would be evaluated under three remaining factors:  technical performance, past performance and price.  RFP amend. No 0005, at 5-6.[1]  The RFP did not specify the relative importance of the non-price factors, so we find that they were weighted equally.  LIS, Inc., B‑400646.2, B-400646.3, Mar. 25, 2009, 2010 CPD ¶ 5 at 9.  The RFP did specify that technical performance and past performance, in combination, were significantly more important than price. [2]  RFP amend. 0005, at 6.  The RFP also identified three elements under the technical performance factor:  compatibility, weight, and “marine preference.”  RFP amend. 0005, at 6.  Because the RFP did not specify the relative weight of these elements, we also find that they were equally weighted.  LIS, Inc. supra.  Finally, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate prices for completeness and reasonableness.  RFP amend. No. 0005, at 9. In response to the solicitation, the agency received a number of proposals.  The record shows that, after evaluating the proposals under the go/no-go factors and finding that all but one of the proposals were acceptable, the agency then identified a number of the remaining proposals, including those of the protester and awardee, that were the highest rated under the weight and compatibility elements of the technical performance factor.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 2.  The most highly rated proposals were then evaluated for marine preference.[3] Based on this evaluation process, the agency assigned both the protester’s and awardee’s proposals acceptable ratings under the past performance factor.  AR, exh.