TITLE:  Delco Industrial Textile Corporation, B-292324, August 8, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292324
DATE:  August 8, 2003
**********************************************************************
Delco Industrial Textile Corporation, B-292324, August 8, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:    Delco Industrial Textile Corporation
    
File:             B-292324
    
Date:              August 8, 2003
    
Wendy Diane Wayland, Esq., Cozen & O'Connor, for the protester.
Brandon Hoffmann, Weckworth-Langdon, an interested party.
Robert L. Mercadante, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protester's assertion that its subcontractor bore responsibility for
untimely delivery under its prime contracts with the agency presents no
basis for questioning the agency's downgrading of protester's proposal
based on conclusion that its delivery record under those contracts was
poor; agency's evaluation properly was based on its reasonable perception
of prior performance problems and, in any case, a prime contractor under a
government contract is generally responsible for the performance of its
subcontractors.
DECISION
    
Delco Industrial Textile Corporation protests the award of a contract to
Weckworth Manufacturing, Inc. d/b/a Weckworth-Langdon under request for
proposals (RFP) No. SP0560-02-R-0376, issued by the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), for sling cargo
nets.  Delco contends that the award decision was unreasonable.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The RFP, issued July 3, 2002 as a small business set-aside, anticipated
the award of a fixed-price contract for quantities of nylon, sling cargo
nets, for use in moving cargo from ship to ship by helicopter.  The RFP
instructed offerors to provide a list of prior contracts performed, along
with references.  The solicitation also advised offerors that past
performance would be evaluated using DLA's Automated Best Value System
(ABVS), which assigns firms a numeric score based on their performance
history, including delinquencies, length of delinquencies,
contractor‑caused cancellations, product nonconformance, and
packaging nonconformance.  The ABVS score is comprised of a Federal Supply
Class (FSC) score, which represents the offeror's DLA-wide performance for
that FSC, and a DLA score, which reflects the offeror's performance for
all FSCs.[1]  RFP at 20.  Both the FSC and DLA scores include scores for
quality and delivery.
    
The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to
the solicitation, was determined to be the *best value* to the government
based on past performance, price and other related factors.  The past
performance factor included three subfactors:  (1) product
quality--conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and
standards of good workmanship; (2) delivery--timeliness of performance;
and (3) business relations--effective management and commitment to
customer satisfaction.  Performance was more important than price, and
quality performance was more important than delivery performance.  The
non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price. 
    
Ten proposals, including Delco's and Weckworth's, were received by the
closing time.  Following a request for clarification of past performance
information and issuance of an amendment increasing quantities and
extending delivery dates, six offerors, including Delco and Weckworth,
submitted final proposal revisions.  In the evaluation, DSCP determined
that Weckworth's proposal, priced at $1,823,406, offered the best value,
with FSC and DLA quality scores of 100, an FSC delivery score of 78.1, and
a DLA delivery score of 86.6.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Source
Selection Decision Document, at 2.  Delco's proposal, priced at
$1,881,800, also was evaluated with FSC and DLA quality scores of 100, and
received an FSC delivery score of 82.2 and a DLA delivery score of 96.1. 
Id. 
    
Although Delco's ABVS delivery scores were slightly higher than
Weckworth's, the agency ultimately concluded that Weckworth's delivery
performance was superior to Delco's based on information in Delco's
proposal regarding late deliveries under two current contracts. 
Specifically, the protester noted that, under one current contract, it was
late delivering three items:  one item was to be delivered by February 8,
2003 but was not delivered until March 25, 47 days late; a second item had
a contract delivery date of February 8 but was not delivered until March
27, 49 days late; and a third item had a contract delivery date of
February 15 but was not received until April 23, 46 days late. 
Additionally, two other items under this contract, with delivery dates of
February 22 and March 1, had not yet been delivered at the time of
evaluation.  On the second contract, Delco's proposal noted that two items
had delivery dates of April 23 but had not yet been delivered.  AR at 9. 
DSCP was also aware (although not from Delco's proposal) that, under a
recent prior contract, Delco's supplier had imposed credit/quantity
limitations, and the agency ultimately found it necessary to purchase the
webbing and supply it to Delco as government-furnished material (GFM) in
order to *optimize contract delivery.*  AR, Tab 10, Source Selection
Decision Document, at 5. 
    
Based on this information, the agency concluded that Delco's *minimal
edge* in ABVS delivery scores was *more than offset by 1) the positive
recommendation . . . for Weckworth; 2) Delco's current delinquencies on
the same item; and 3) Delco's production delays for this same item on a
previous contract which required intervention in the form of Government
Furnished Material . . . .*  AR, Tab 10, Source Selection Decision
Document, at 9.  Since the firms were rated the same for quality
performance and Weckworth's price was lower, the agency made award to
Weckworth.  Upon learning of the award, Delco filed an agency-level
protest.  That protest was denied, and Delco then filed this protest with
our Office.
    
Delco argues that the evaluation of its delivery performance was
unreasonable because the recent late deliveries that led to the
downgrading of its proposal were due, not to its own actions, but to late
deliveries by its webbing supplier.  Delco asserts that it had expressed
its concerns to the agency about its webbing supplier, and that the agency
therefore knew that Delco was not to blame for the late deliveries.  Delco
also asserts that the agency improperly considered allegedly incorrect
information from its supplier that Delco had credit problems and a poor
payment history.[2] 
    
The evaluation of past performance is a matter within the discretion of
the contracting agency that our Office will review to ensure that it was
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  NLX Corp.,
B-288785, B-288785.2, Dec. 7, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 198 at 7.  An agency's
past performance evaluation may be based on a reasonable perception of
inadequate prior performance, regardless of whether the contractor
disputes the agency's interpretation of the underlying facts.  Ready
Transp., Inc., B-285283.3, B-285283.4, May 8, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 90 at 5.
    
The evaluation here was reasonable.  First, while the record shows that
the agency indeed was aware that Delco held its supplier responsible for
the late deliveries, the agency had no information--and the record
contains none--definitively showing that Delco's position regarding the
cause of the delinquencies was the correct one.  Rather, the agency was
aware that the delivery problems may be due to other problems Delco was
having; the agency states--without purporting to adjudicate any
dispute--that it had *information from more than one source that problems
[with Delco] did exist and were related to a history of late payments for
materials by the protester to its subcontractor.*  AR at 13.  The agency
also was aware that, as noted above, it had been necessary for it to
provide webbing to Delco to *optimize* delivery under another recent
contract.  As indicated above, an agency's evaluation properly may be
based on its reasonable perception of inadequate prior performance,
whether or not the offeror disputes the agency's interpretation of the
facts.  The agency's perception of Delco's performance problems clearly
was reasonable, since it had no information establishing that the
information it had been presented was incorrect, and there had been no
formal adjudication of the matter in Delco's favor.  Contrary to Delco's
assertion, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency's considering the
information furnished by the supplier; the mere fact that Delco disputed
it did not render it invalid or any less reliable than the information
Delco had furnished.  In any case, Delco's attempt to absolve itself of
all responsibility for the delayed deliveries is unavailing; as the agency
point out, a prime contractor under a government contract is normally
responsible for the performance of its subcontractors.  ViaSat, Inc.,
B‑291152, B‑291152.2, Nov. 26, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 211 at 8;
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc., B-275066, Jan. 17, 1997, 97-1 CPD P: 30 at 4. 
Delco has not established that a different rule should apply here.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    
    
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1] In this case, the ABVS FSC scores were based on the offeror's past
performance on contracts for cargo nets and items related to cargo nets. 
[2] In its protest, Delco also argued that the agency improperly evaluated
its quality performance because it failed to consider Delco's extensive
experience in manufacturing large quantities of cargo nets.  The agency
responded to this argument in its report, and since Delco did not rebut
the agency's position in its comments on the report, we consider this
issue abandoned.  Westinghouse Gov't and Envtl. Servs. Co., Inc., B-280928
et al., Dec. 4, 1998, 99-1 CPD P: 3 at 7 n.6.