Coachys & Associates, LLC (SPE1C1-20- R-0157)

B-420423.1,B-420423.2 Mar 15, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Valley Apparel, LLC, a small business of Knoxville, Tennessee, and Coachys & Associates, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Canton, Georgia, protest their exclusion from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1-20-R-0157, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for extreme cold/wet weather trousers. Valley Apparel and Coachys argue that the technical evaluations were unreasonable and inadequately documented. We deny the protests. 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:  Valley Apparel, LLC; Coachys & Associates, LLC File:  B-420423.1; B-420423.2 Date:   March 15, 2022 David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., and Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protesters. Allison Colsey Eck, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests challenging agency technical evaluations are denied where the technical evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Valley Apparel, LLC, a small business of Knoxville, Tennessee, and Coachys & Associates, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Canton, Georgia, protest their exclusion from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1-20-R-0157, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for extreme cold/wet weather trousers.  Valley Apparel and Coachys argue that the technical evaluations were unreasonable and inadequately documented. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on June 9, 2021.  In general terms, the agency sought to acquire waterproof, extreme cold/wet weather camouflage trousers.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 1, 6, 20.[1]  The requirements were set forth in purchase description No. GL-PD-06-17D, which included specifications for the design, materials, and “finished measurements” for the trousers.  Id. at 20 (incorporating purchase description); AR, Exh. 9, Purchase Description at 1, 5, 19-20. The solicitation provided for procurement of three “different and distinct lots” of the same trousers, with each lot awarded to a different offeror.  RFP amend. 1 at 2-3 (amending description of lots).  Lots 1 and 3 were set aside for small businesses and lot 2 was set aside for SDVOSBs.  RFP at 67.  The solicitation contemplated award of fixed‑price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with 1-year base terms and three 1-year option terms.  Id. at 7, 66. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis using the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  product demonstration model (PDM); past performance; and price.  Id. at 67-68.  The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.  For the technical evaluation, offerors were required to submit three PDMs--here, three medium-regular size trousers and the associated material test data reports.[2]  Id. at 60.  The solicitation provided that DLA would evaluate, on a pass/fail basis, the PDMs for consistency with the manufacturing operations, visual requirements, and dimensional requirements of the purchase description.  Id. at 68.  Offerors were on notice that DLA would “not further evaluate any offers for which the PDM receives a FAIL rating.”  Id. Valley Apparel submitted a proposal for lots 1 and 3, with PDMs that Valley Apparel manufactures at its own facility.  AR, Exh. 11, Proposal Part 1 at 1, 5.  Coachys submitted a proposal for lot 2, explaining that it had “teamed with Valley Apparel” for the procurement and submitting PDMs that were also manufactured by Valley Apparel at the Valley Apparel facility.  Coachys AR, Exh. 12, Proposal Part 2 at 2, 4. The agency assigned ratings of fail to both Valley Apparel’s and Coachys’s PDMs for inconsistencies with the same five dimensional requirements, i.e., trouser measurements.  AR, Exh. 7, Evaluation at 1-2; Coachys AR, Exh.