Jamaica Bearings Group (SPE4A2-21-R-0002)

B-421180,B-421180.2,B-421180.3 Jan 11, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jamaica Bearings Group, a small business of New Hyde Park, New York, protests the award of contracts to three firms under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE4A2-21-R-0002, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for material support. The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and made an unreasonable best-value determination. 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: Jamaica Bearings Group File: B‑421180; B‑421180.2; B‑421180.3 Date: January 11, 2023 Casey J. McKinnon, Esq., Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC, for the protester. Gary J. Campbell, Esq., Miles A. McCann, Esq., Joshuah R. Turner, Esq., and Jedidiah Blake, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for Noble Supply and Logistics, LLC, the intervenor. Elan D. Taylor, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. David A. Edelstein, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of agency’s technical, past performance, and price evaluation is denied where record demonstrates that agency reasonably evaluated proposals in accordance with solicitation criteria. 2. Protest of agency’s best‑value tradeoff decisions is dismissed where the agency took corrective action for some of the contract awards, rendering those decisions academic, and for the remaining contract awards the agency awarded contracts to offerors that were lower-priced than, and equally-rated to, the protester. DECISION Jamaica Bearings Group, a small business of New Hyde Park, New York, protests the award of contracts to three firms[1] under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE4A2‑21‑R‑0002, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for material support. The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and made an unreasonable best‑value determination. We deny the protest. Background On October 30, 2022, the agency issued the RFP, seeking to award multiple fixed-price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts for the supply of 682 items within federal stock group (FSG) 31, bearings/bushings. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL)[2] at 2. The items were divided among three federal supply classes (FSCs): FSC 3110 (bearings, antifriction, unmounted); FSC 3120 (bearings, plain, unmounted); and FSC 3130 (bearings, mounted). Id. To be considered for award, offerors were required to propose at least 50 percent of the initial population of supply items (i.e., at least 341 items). Id.; see Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, Solicitation Statement of Work at 2. As amended, the RFP anticipated a 3‑year base period, one 3‑year option period, and one 4‑year option period. AR, Exh. 12, RFP amend. 6 at 2. The solicitation identified four evaluation factors: cyber security, technical, past performance, and price. AR, Exh. 5, RFP[3] at 8. The cyber security and technical factors would be evaluated on an “[a]cceptable/[u]nacceptable” basis; any offeror determined to have proposed an unacceptable approach to either factor would be ineligible for award. Id. The agency would conduct its best‑value tradeoff between past performance and price, which were of equal importance. Id. The agency would make tradeoff decisions on a “line‑by‑line” basis, that is, each of the 682 supply items requested by the solicitation were assigned a separate contract line item number (CLIN), and the agency would make a separate tradeoff and award decision for each CLIN. Id. A proposal would be evaluated as acceptable on the technical factor if it “clearly [met] the minimum requirements of the RFP,” and unacceptable if it did not. Id. at 10. There were two technical subfactors: high‑level quality certification, and contractor declaration. Id. at 9. The first subfactor required offerors to “[p]rovide evidence of [h]igher‑[l]evel [q]uality [c]ertification in accordance with [International Standards Organization (ISO)] 9001 or equivalent” and to describe the capabilities of their quality systems.[4] Id. The second subfactor required the contractor to complete a “Contractor Declaration” form included with the solicitation, acknowledging that the contractor would adhere to the restrictions of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.225‑7016 and section 225.7009‑2.[5] Id. Under the past performance factor, the agency would “assess [its] confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record.” RFP at 10.