Unitec Distribution Systems (AOCSSB21Q0025)

B-419874,B-419874.2 Aug 20, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Unitec Distribution Systems, a small business of Westminster, Maryland, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Hanover Uniform Company, a small business of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. AOCSSB21Q0025, issued by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) for uniforms and related items. Unitec argues that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated technical and price quotations, and made a flawed best-value tradeoff 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:  Unitec Distribution Systems File:  B-419874; B-419874.2 Date:  August 20, 2021 Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., General Counsel, PC, for the protester. Moshe B. Broder, Esq., and Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for Hanover Uniform Company, the intervenor. Robert L. Carson III, Esq., Architect of the Capitol, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated quotations is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably and equally evaluated quotations in accordance with the solicitation’s terms, and where the protester does not show that the price reasonableness analysis was unreasonable or insufficiently documented. DECISION Unitec Distribution Systems, a small business of Westminster, Maryland, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Hanover Uniform Company, a small business of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. AOCSSB21Q0025, issued by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) for uniforms and related items.  Unitec argues that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated technical and price quotations, and made a flawed best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 3, 2021, the AOC issued the RFQ to procure uniforms, patches, insignia, outerwear, and related items for approximately 1,700 employees in the U.S. Capitol Building, House and Senate office buildings, the Supreme Court, the Botanic Garden, and other facilities.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, Statement of Work (SOW) at 3.  The RFQ, set aside for small businesses using the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13, contemplated the issuance of a BPA against which fixed-price orders could be placed over a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  AR, exh.1, RFQ at 4, 11. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering five evaluation factors, in descending order of importance:  technical approach, key personnel, corporate experience, past performance, and price.  AR, exh. 3, Instructions to Vendors and Basis of Award at 3, 6.  Under the technical approach, key personnel, and corporate experience factors, quotations were to be evaluated as outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id. at 9.  Under the past performance factor, quotations were to be given confidence ratings.  Id. at 10.  Price was to be evaluated for accuracy, completeness, and reasonableness.  Id. at 8.  When combined, the non-price factors were more important than price.  Id. at 6.  If quotations were determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e., were technically equivalent), price would become the determining factor.  Otherwise, award might be made to a higher-priced quotation if the agency found a price premium was warranted due to technical merit.  Id. On April 5, the agency received two quotations, one from Unitec and one from Hanover, the incumbent contractor.  AR, exh. 4, Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Consensus Report at 2.  Each TEP member individually evaluated the quotations and then the TEP prepared a consensus report with the following results:   Unitec Hanover Technical Approach Acceptable Acceptable Key Personnel Acceptable Acceptable Corporate Experience Acceptable Acceptable Past Performance Substantial Confidence Substantial Confidence Price $4,506,673 $5,189,246   Id. at 6, 8; AR, exh. 8, Price Evaluation Report at 2.  Under the technical approach factor, the TEP identified two strengths in Hanover’s quotation, one concerning its designation of the agency as a key account, and the other concerning the provision of a dedicated customer service agent and not to rely on a generic call center.  AR, exh. 4, TEP Consensus Report at 6.  The agency found that Unitec’s quotation met the SOW requirements but identified no strengths.  Id.