UDC USA, Inc. (W15QKN20R0072)

B-419671 Jun 21, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights UDC USA, Inc., a small business of Tampa, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Ensign-Bickford Aerospace and Defense Company (Ensign), of Simsbury, Connecticut, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-20-R-0072, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for the production, testing, packaging, and delivery of blasting caps. UDC challenges the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal, as well as the agency's 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:  UDC USA, Inc. File:  B-419671 Date:  June 21, 2021 Lee Dougherty, Esq., Effectus, PLLC, for the protester. Barry J. Hurewitz, Esq., Philip E. Beshara, Esq., and Chanda L. Brown, Esq., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, for Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense Company, the intervenor. Jered J. Leo, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency applied unstated evaluation criteria in its evaluation of a protester’s proposal is denied where the record reflects that the challenged evaluation was premised on matters that were logically encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria.  2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal, including allegations that the agency unreasonably failed to assess additional strengths in the protester’s technical proposal, is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION UDC USA, Inc., a small business of Tampa, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Ensign-Bickford Aerospace and Defense Company (Ensign), of Simsbury, Connecticut, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-20-R-0072, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for the production, testing, packaging, and delivery of blasting caps.  UDC challenges the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal, as well as the agency’s source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 17, 2020, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and four option years.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3.  The solicitation sought proposals for the production, testing, packaging, and delivery of three types of blasting cap assemblies:  the M19, M21, and M23.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP § C.1.0 (conformed).  The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical, (2) past performance, (3) price, and (4) small business participation.  RFP § M-1.1.  The technical factor included three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) manufacturing plan, (2) quality assurance and critical characteristic plan (“quality assurance plan”), and (3) management plan.  RFP § M-2.1.  The RFP provided that the three non-price factors, combined, were significantly more important than price, and cautioned offerors that award would not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offeror.  RFP § M-1.1.  With regard to the technical factor and the small business participation factor, the solicitation established an adjectival rating scheme and advised that evaluators would assess each factor and subfactor for significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties.  RFP § M-2.2.  In addition to the adjectival ratings, the solicitation anticipated the consideration of technical risk, where the agency would assess technical risk for the “potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased [g]overnment oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.”  RFP § M-3.1.2.  Under the past performance factor, the solicitation advised that offerors would be evaluated on “the quality of their relevant and recent past performance” on previous contracts “as it relates to the probability of success on this contract,” and explained that data obtained independently, as well as the data that offerors provided in their proposals, could be used to evaluate past performance.  RFP § M-4.1.  The solicitation established the following confidence ratings for the past performance e...