Jensen Promotional Items, Inc. (SPE1C1-23-R-0063)

B-421884,B-421884.2 Nov 17, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jensen Promotional Items, Inc., a small business of Chesapeake, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1-23-R-0063, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for berets for military service member uniforms. The protester contends that the agency improperly eliminated its proposal from further consideration under the procurement. 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 version, with no redactions, has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Jensen Promotional Items, Inc. File: B-421884; B-421884.2 Date: November 17, 2023 Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, LLC, for the protester. Gregory Mathews, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals and exclusion of the protester’s proposal from the competition is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and where patent ambiguities in the solicitation were not challenged prior to the due date for receipt of proposals. DECISION Jensen Promotional Items, Inc., a small business of Chesapeake, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1-23-R-0063, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for berets for military service member uniforms. The protester contends that the agency improperly eliminated its proposal from further consideration under the procurement. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 17, 2023, DLA issued the RFP pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation parts 12 and 15, seeking proposals for military service member berets. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 1, 64, 70; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3.[1] The RFP was set aside for small businesses and contemplated the award of up to two indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) fixed-price with economic price adjustment contracts for a 48-month period of performance. RFP at 1, 10, 11; COS/MOL at 3. The RFP contained contract line item number pricing for two separate “lots” of berets, and advised that the agency intended to make a separate award for each lot, though the agency reserved the right to award both lots to the same firm if it was determined to be in the government’s best interest. RFP at 11. The agency estimated a contract value of $13.3 million for beret lot 1, the subject lot of the instant protest. COS/MOL at 4. The RFP provided that DLA intended to award contract(s) to the responsible firm whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, would be most advantageous to the government, considering price and other evaluation factors. Id. at 70. The RFP further advised that the agency would make a best-value tradeoff determination in making its award. Id. at 70-71. The RFP stated there would be two non-price evaluation factors: (1) past performance; and (2) product demonstration models (PDMs). Id. Past performance was a more important factor than PDMs, and when combined, the non‑price factors were significantly more important than price. Id. As relevant to the protest, the RFP provided offerors instructions for submitting PDMs to DLA. Section L of the RFP instructed offerors to submit one PDM, conforming to a particular national stock number and size, for each production facility or place of performance identified in their proposals. Id. at 68. The RFP further advised in the same section that PDMs would be evaluated “for conformance to each item’s specification characteristics. Failure of the PDMs to conform to all such characteristics will result in rejection of the entire proposal.” Id. at 69. Section M of the RFP advised that PDMs would be evaluated in accordance with commercial item description (CID) AA 55184A, and for conformance to the beret specifications therein. Id. at 71. Further, the PDMs would be evaluated to determine quality workmanship and conformance with design and performance requirements. Id. PDMs would receive adjectival ratings of either unacceptable, marginal, acceptable, good, or outstanding. Id. at 76. The RFP also advised that a rating of unacceptable for any PDM “will remove the offeror from consideration for award.” Id. at 73. Jensen timely submitted its proposal and a PDM by the June 30 closing date for receipt of proposals. COS/MOL at 12. DLA’s technical team subsequently evaluated all PDMs and documented its evaluation. Id. at 13.