BNUMBER:  B-280447             
DATE:  August 28, 1998
TITLE: YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., B-280447, August 28, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:YKK (U.S.A.), Inc.

File:B-280447            
        
Date:August 28, 1998

David M. Goodman for the protester. 
Katherine A. Day, Esq., Federal Bureau of Prisons, for the agency. 
Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protester's contention that the agency improperly evaluated 
awardee's past performance is denied where the record shows that the 
agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the 
solicitation, and the record reasonably supports the ratings assigned 
the awardee's proposal.

2.  Whether an offeror can or will supply domestic products in 
accordance with the terms of a solicitation concerns a matter of 
responsibility which General Accounting Office generally will not 
review absent a showing of possible bad faith, or that definitive 
responsibility criteria may not have been met.

DECISION

YKK (U.S.A.), Inc. protests the award of a contract to Pacific 
Contract Management (PCM) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
1PI-R-1005-98, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Prison 
Industries (UNICOR), for various quantities of zippers.  YKK contends 
that the agency improperly failed to evaluate PCM's proposal in 
accordance with the evaluation criteria announced in the RFP.  YKK 
also argues that PCM intends to furnish a non-domestic item in 
violation of the solicitation.

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued on March 19, 1998 to 13 potential offerors and 
contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, 
indefinite-quantity requirements contract for a base year and up to 
two 1-year option periods.  Section B of the RFP listed 36 contract 
line item numbers (CLIN) describing the various zipper requirements 
and estimated quantities for each CLIN for the base (CLINs 0001-0012) 
and option periods (CLINs 0013-0036).  For the base period, the 
zippers identified by CLINs 0001-0009 were to be delivered to Fort 
Dix, New Jersey, and those identified by CLINs 0010-0012 were to be 
delivered to UNICOR Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia.  
RFP  sec.  B.  Offerors were required to submit unit and extended prices 
for each CLIN for the base and option periods.  The RFP listed past 
performance (worth 50 points) and the offeror's reputation for 
compliance with specification requirements and adherence to the 
statement of work (25 points) as evaluation criteria.  RFP Amendment 
No. 0003 at 3.  The RFP instructed offerors to provide information on 
"recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items and other 
references (including contract numbers, points of contact with 
telephone numbers and other relevant information)" to permit the 
agency to evaluate the offerors' past performance.  RFP  sec.  52.212-1.

As for price, the lowest-priced proposal was to receive the maximum 
number of points available (25) and higher-priced proposals were to 
receive proportionately lower scores.  RFP Amendment No. 0003 at 2, 3.  
Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the 
"best overall expected value" and was deemed most advantageous to the 
government based on the evaluation criteria specified in the 
solicitation.  Id. at 2.  The RFP also permitted the agency to make 
multiple awards if that would result in the lowest aggregate cost to 
the government.  RFP Amendment No. 0002 at 2.

The agency received initial proposals from three firms, including YKK 
and PCM, conducted written discussions, and requested final revised 
proposals from all three.  The contracting officer evaluated proposals 
and eliminated one as unacceptable, leaving YKK's and PCM's proposals 
in the competition.  The contracting officer evaluated YKK's and PCM's 
past performance by contacting three references for each offeror.  
Based on the responses received, he assigned both firms' proposals 
overall ratings of 40 points under this evaluation factor.  The 
contracting officer also assigned both firms the maximum number of 
points under the second factor relating to the offeror's reputation 
for compliance with specifications factor.  Thus, both firms' 
proposals received identical ratings (65 points) in the technical 
area.

As for price, the contracting officer determined that, including the 
base and option periods, as provided in the RFP, PCM offered the 
lowest overall price and assigned that firm's proposal the maximum 
number of points available (25); YKK's slightly higher overall price 
earned 24.8 points.  Upon closer evaluation, however, the contracting 
officer determined that PCM offered the lowest total price for CLINs 
0001-0009 (Fort Dix), while YKK offered the lowest total price for 
CLINs 0010-0012 (Alderson).  Accordingly, the contracting officer 
determined that it was in the best interest of the government to award 
a contract to PCM for CLINs 0001-0009, and a contract to YKK for CLINs 
0010-0012.  This protest by YKK followed a debriefing by the agency.

YKK protests that the agency's evaluation of PCM's proposal under the 
past performance and compliance with specifications factors was 
unreasonable.  The protester's main contention is that PCM does not 
have an established performance record as a zipper supplier.  Thus, 
according to the protester, there was no basis for a favorable 
evaluation of PCM's past performance or its reputation for compliance 
with specifications.

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the 
discretion of the contracting agency, since the agency is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  
Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
16 at 5.  In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate 
technical proposals, but instead will examine the agency's evaluation 
to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 
solicitation's evaluation criteria.  MAR Inc., B-246889, Apr. 14, 
1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  367 at 4.  An offeror's mere disagreement with the 
agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable.  McDonnell Douglas 
Corp., B-259694.2, B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  51 at 18.

The evaluation record for each offer consists of a "Bidder Evaluation" 
sheet, which lists the evaluation criteria (past performance, 
compliance with specifications, and price) and shows the numerical 
ratings assigned under each.  Attached to this sheet are the 
contracting officer's hand-written notes reflecting the responses he 
received from the three references contacted for each offeror.  For 
PCM, two of the references contacted were for a contract for zippers 
PCM provided to UNICOR and one was for a contract for medallions.[1]  
The contracting officer's contemporaneous notations show that one of 
the UNICOR references rated PCM's performance as "good," with no 
delivery problems, and indicated that the contractor "was able to work 
out any problem areas."  The other UNICOR reference for the same 
contract also rated PCM's performance as "good" and indicated that no 
"show cause" or "cure notices" had been issued to the firm.  The third 
reference contacted, regarding the medallions contract, also rated 
PCM's performance as "good" and stated that the company had fulfilled 
its contract obligations satisfactorily.  Based on the overall 
favorable responses received, the contracting officer assigned PCM's 
proposal a rating of 40 points/good under the past performance area.  
In addition, in view of the positive comments regarding satisfactory 
performance, including timely delivery, the contracting officer 
proceeded under the assumption that PCM had complied with the 
specifications in performing its contracts, and assigned the maximum 
number of points available to PCM's proposal in the compliance with 
specifications factor.[2]  Based on this record, we have no basis to 
object to the evaluation of PCM's proposal.[3]

YKK also argues that PCM intends to furnish non-domestic zippers in 
violation of a clause entitled "PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN DOMESTIC 
COMMODITIES (MAY 1994)" contained in the solicitation.  RFP at 27.  
YKK further claims that the zippers PCM will supply under the contract 
will not comply with various specification requirements.

Whether an offeror can or will supply domestic products in accordance 
with the terms of a solicitation concerns a matter of responsibility 
which generally we will not review absent a showing of possible bad 
faith, or that definitive responsibility criteria may not have been 
met.  See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(c) (1998); Oliver 
Prods. Co., B-245762.2, Apr. 28, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  501 at 3.  Further, 
an allegation that a contractor is not meeting its obligations is a 
matter of contract administration, which is not for resolution under 
our bid protest function.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a).  Our Office will review 
such matters only where it appears from the protester's submission 
that the successful bidder or offeror might not furnish domestic 
products and the contracting officer should have been aware of that 
possibility.[4]  See Autospin, Inc., B-233778, Feb. 23, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  
197 at 2-3; Designware, Inc., B-221423, Feb. 20, 1986, 86-1 CPD  para.  181 
at 2-3.  These circumstances are not alleged or evident here.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The RFP required offerors to provide information on "recent and 
relevant contracts for the same or similar items."  PCM listed five 
contracts in its proposal, including two for zippers, one for "pot of 
gold awards" and two for "medallions."  The evaluation record shows 
that the contracting officer disregarded PCM's past performance on the 
"pot of gold awards" contract, but did consider PCM's past performance 
on one each of the zipper and medallions contracts.  YKK argues that 
the contracting officer should not have considered PCM's past 
performance on the medallions contract because medallions are not "the 
same or similar" items as zippers.  However, even if the response the 
contracting officer received on the medallions contract were 
discounted from the evaluation, there is no reason to conclude that 
PCM's technical ratings would be negatively affected, since the 
contracting officer received favorable responses from the respondents 
on the zipper contracts.

2. While the past performance questionnaire that the contracting 
officer used during his evaluation does not distinguish between an 
offeror's past performance and its reputation for compliance with 
specifications, we think that the contracting officer could reasonably 
conclude based on the favorable comments he received from the 
respondents that PCM had complied with specifications in the past.  
Presumably, if PCM had failed to comply with specifications or failed 
to timely deliver under any of its referenced contracts, the 
respondents' overall comments would have reflected such 
non-compliance.

3. It appears from the record that the references PCM listed in its 
proposal were for contracts performed by a predecessor firm to PCM.  
YKK argues that the contracting officer improperly evaluated PCM's 
proposal by crediting the company for the favorable past performance 
of a predecessor firm to PCM.  An agency may properly consider the 
experience of a predecessor firm.  See, e.g., Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. 
(GS), Inc., B-271903, Aug. 6, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  75 at 5 n.1; Oklahoma 
County Newspapers, Inc., B-270849, B-270849.2, May 6, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
213 at 4.  Except for its statement that PCM's past performance rating 
should have been based solely on contracts awarded to that firm, YKK 
does not explain why the contracting officer should ignore the 
predecessor firm's past performance on similar contracts.

4. The agency explains that, after questions were raised by YKK, the 
contracting officer contacted PCM regarding the RFP's domestic 
commodities requirement.  In response, PCM submitted a letter to the 
contracting officer confirming its understanding of the requirement 
and the firm's intent to comply with that provision.  PCM's letter 
further explained that, in response to a recent protest by YKK 
challenging its compliance with the domestic commodities provision 
under a different zipper contract, a Department of Justice official 
recently inspected and approved its manufacturing plant.  Thus, the 
contracting officer had information that PCM understood and intended 
to comply with the RFP's domestic commodities requirement.  Under 
these circumstances, we believe that the contracting officer did all 
that was reasonably necessary to ensure that PCM would in fact deliver 
a product that complies with the solicitation's domestic item 
requirement and acted reasonably in accepting PCM's offer.  To the 
extent that YKK argues that PCM will provide zippers of foreign 
components, we note that PCM did not take exception to the RFP's 
domestic commodities provision in its proposal, and the firm confirmed 
its understanding and intent to comply with that provision.  Thus, 
acceptance of PCM's offer obligates the firm to furnish zippers that 
comply with the RFP's domestic commodities provision.