United Salad Company (SPE300-22-R-0029)

B-422146 Jan 18, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights United Salad Company of Portland, Oregon, protests the award of a contract to Chico Produce, Inc., doing business as (DBA) Pro Pacific Fresh, of Durham, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE300-22-R-0029, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, for the supply and delivery of fresh fruits and vegetables. United Salad challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation and award decision. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: United Salad Company File: B-422146 Date: January 18, 2024 D. Brent Carpenter, Esq., Jordan Ramis, PC, for the protester. Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, for Chico Produce, Inc., the intervenor. Demetrius Pavlo, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that award was improper is denied where the awardee’s proposal did not, on its face, indicate that the awardee would not comply with the solicitation’s requirements; and where the record shows that the awardee’s identity is sufficiently clear to contractually bind the firm. 2. Protest alleging that the agency failed to perform a price realism evaluation is dismissed where the solicitation neither required nor permitted the agency to perform a price realism evaluation. DECISION United Salad Company of Portland, Oregon, protests the award of a contract to Chico Produce, Inc., doing business as (DBA) Pro Pacific Fresh, of Durham, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE300-22-R-0029, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, for the supply and delivery of fresh fruits and vegetables. United Salad challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation and award decision. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. BACKGROUND On September 19, 2022, the agency issued the RFP on an unrestricted basis, seeking a contractor to supply fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as shell eggs if required, to customers in Oregon and parts of Washington. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 7. The RFP provided that the contractor would be required to “source, purchase, store, and deliver” a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables on an ongoing basis, “while at the same time maintaining acceptable fill rates, levels of customer service, and product quality.” Id. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity, fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract[1] to be performed over 48 months. Id. at 7-8. The RFP stated that award would be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis. Id. at 45-46. The RFP provided that a technically acceptable offer would be one that “takes no exceptions to the terms and conditions in the solicitation and complies fully with all submission requirements.” Id. at 46. The RFP further provided that, “[b]y submitting a proposal with no exceptions, an offeror is confirming it possesses the necessary facilities, equipment, technical skills and capacity to successfully provide all items required by this solicitation.” Id. Among other things, the RFP required offerors to provide a commercial and government entity (CAGE) code. Id. at 3. Of relevance here, the RFP also limited subcontracting as follows: [A]n offeror must currently possess the physical, logistical, and financial resources to serve as a commercial distributor of a variety of [fresh fruits and vegetables] items. It is neither sufficient nor acceptable for an offeror to be a third-party logistics (“3PL”) company (i.e., a company that does not intend to serve as the [fresh fruits and vegetables] supplier but instead intends to subcontract out the majority of aspects required by the contract, including but not limited to ordering, warehousing, distribution, etc.). By offering, an offeror affirms its status as a current and functioning commercial distributor of [fresh fruits and vegetables] items. Id. at 7. In this regard, the RFP provided that, “[i]n order to determine whether an offeror meets the technical requirement of being a current and functioning commercial [fresh fruits and vegetables] distributor,” offerors were required to submit two pieces of information: (1) a valid and current Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) license; and (2) a valid and current audit report with a passing score for each place of performance identified in the proposal.[2] Id. at 7, 46. For price, the RFP provided that the agency would perform “an aggregate price analysis” to determine the lowest evaluated aggregate price. Id. at 46.