TITLE:  California Pacific Associates, B-294563, October 26, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294563
DATE:  October 26, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   California Pacific Associates

   File:            B-294563

   Date:              October 26, 2004

   Alan M. Grayson, Esq., Victor A. Kubli, Esq., and James A. McMillan, Esq.,
Grayson & Kubli, for the protester.

   Robert H. Koehler, Esq., Patton Boggs, for Washington Beef, LLC, and
Harvey J. Nathan, Esq., Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, for Tysons Fresh
Meats, Inc., intervenors.

   Elliot J. Clark, Esq., Defense Commissary Agency, for the agency.

   Sharon L Larkin, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protester's challenge to the evaluation of its proposal is denied, where
record reflects that the agency reasonably evaluated proposal under the
technical and past performance factors; the fact that protester is
incumbent providing services to two of the four areas required by
solicitation does not, in and of itself, require that protester be awarded
maximum points under evaluation scheme.

   DECISION

   California Pacific Associates (CalPac) protests the award of Defense
Commissary Agency contracts to Tysons Fresh Meats, Inc. and Washington
Beef, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-04-R-0001, for the
provision of fresh and frozen beef and pork products to United States
military commissaries in Far East Asia and Guam.  CalPac challenges the
evaluation of its proposal.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP provided for a fixed-price award to service Guam and Korea and a
fixeda**price award to service Japan and Okinawa; each for a 1-year base
period with two 1a**year options.  The awards were to be made on a
besta**value basis, considering technical capability, past performance and
price.  The first two factors were equally

   weighted (worth 110 points each), and combined were equal in importance to
price.  The RFP identified four technical capability subfactors
(experience, distribution plan, quality control, and logistical management
support/transition approach) and four past performance subfactors
(timeliness of deliveries, conformance with specification, customer
satisfaction, and business relations).  The first three technical and past
performance subfactors were equally weighted, with the fourth stated to be
"slightly less important" than the others.  RFP at 51, 67.

   The RFP designated a distribution method of either "source loading" or
"crossa**docking" for each of the delivery areas.  "Source loading," which
is required for Guam, Korea, and Okinawa, means that pork and beef
products are loaded into a container without being co-mingled with other
products, and the container is not opened and product is not transferred
until delivered to its overseas destination.  "Cross-docking" contemplates
the transfer of beef or pork from one container to another in order to
combine several small orders to fill a container.  For Japan,
cross-docking is required for deliveries to Iwakuni, and either
cross-docking or source loading can be used for the remaining Japanese
destinations (Misawa, Yokota, Yokusuka, Sagamihara, and Atsugi).  Source
loading is required for Guam, Korea, and Okinawa.  RFP, amend. 5, at 2.

   CalPac is the incumbent contractor currently servicing the Japan and
Okinawa commissaries under a resale ordering agreement with different
terms and conditions from that required by the RFP.  Washington Beef is
the incumbent contractor currently servicing the Guam and Korea
commissaries under a similar resale ordering agreement.  Both of these
firms, and Tysons, responded to the RFP with proposals to service all four
areas covered by the RFP.  All proposals were found to be in the
competitive range.[1]  The agency held multiple rounds of discussions with
each offeror, and rated final proposals as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|A                         |CalPac        |Tysons        |Washington Beef|
|--------------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|Technical Capability      |A                                            |
|--------------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|A  |Experience (30 pts.)  |28            |27            |28             |
|   |----------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|   |Distribution Plan (30 |24            |28            |28             |
|   |pts.)                 |              |              |               |
|   |----------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|   |Quality Control (30   |26            |27            |27             |
|   |pts.)                 |              |              |               |
|   |----------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|   |Logistical Management |19            |19            |18             |
|   |Support/Transition    |              |              |               |
|   |Approach (20 pts.)    |              |              |               |
|   |----------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|   |SUBTOTAL (110 pts)    |97            |101           |101            |
|--------------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|Past Performance          |A                                            |
|--------------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|A  |Timeliness (30 pts.)  |27            |25            |27             |
|   |----------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|   |Conformance with      |28            |25            |28             |
|   |Specifications (30    |              |              |               |
|   |pts.)                 |              |              |               |
|   |----------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|   |Customer Satisfaction |26            |25            |26             |
|   |(30A pts.)            |              |              |               |
|   |----------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|   |Business Relations    |18            |18            |17             |
|   |(20A pts.)            |              |              |               |
|   |----------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|   |SUBTOTAL (110 pts.)   |99            |93            |98             |
|--------------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|Combined Score (220 pts.) |196           |194           |199            |
|--------------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|Price (Guam and Korea)    |$26,432,811.90|$25,003,658.13|$25,433,562.66 |
|--------------------------+--------------+--------------+---------------|
|Price (Japan and Okinawa) |$34,302,494.58|$34.398.319.98|$32,784,453.42 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, Technical Evaluation Report; Tab 18, Source
Selection Decision, at 19, 22. 

   For each offeror's proposal, the subfactor point scores equated to an
adjectival rating of "very good" (which was the highest possible rating),
except for CalPac's score for distribution plan and Washington Beef's
score for business relations, which warranted the next highest adjectival
rating of "good."[2]  CalPac's proposal received a lower score for its
distribution plan based on the fact that it relied heavily on
crossa**docking, which the agency found "may expose [perishable products]
to excessive handling practices and uncontrolled variations in
temperature, [and] additional stress is added to the product shortening
the shelf life."  AR, Tab 18, Source Selection Decision, at 20, 23.  In
this regard, the agency found that Tysons' and Washington Beef's
distribution plans, which did not rely as heavily on crossa**docking, were
"stronger."  However, the agency found "no distinguishing differences"
under the remaining technical capability subfactors, although there were
minor differences in point scores, and found that the past performance
records for all three offerors were "very good."  Id. at 20-23.  The
agency therefore rated each offeror's proposal "very good" overall.

   Given that all three offers were rated "very good," the agency concluded
that there was "no meaningful differences between technical proposals,"
and thus price became the discriminating factor for award.  Id. at 20,
22.  The agency awarded the contract for Guam and Korea to Tysons (which
submitted the lowest priced offer for those areas), and awarded the
contract for Japan and Okinawa to Washington Beef (which submitted the
lowest priced offer for those areas).  This protest followed.

   CalPac contests the evaluation of its proposal under two technical
capability subfactors (distribution plan and experience) and the past
performance factor.[3]

   Where an evaluation is challenged, our Office will not reevaluate
proposals, but instead will examine the record to determine whether the
agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation
criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  U.S. Facilities, Inc.,
B-293029, B-293029.2, Jan. 16, 2004, 2004 CPD P 17 at 6. 

   Under the distribution plan subfactor, as noted above, the agency found
CalPac's proposal slightly inferior to that of Tysons and Washington Beef
based on CalPac's heavy reliance on cross-docking, which the agency found
could result in shortened shelf life.  CalPac contends that this
conclusion is unreasonable because it promised to fully comply with the
requirements for source loading where that distribution method was
required and, and for the other areas, the RFP required cross-docking or
left it to the offeror's discretion as to which distribution method to
use.  The agency responds that CalPac's proposal lacked the details
necessary for the agency to "conclusively conclude" that the firm would
comply with the agency's shipping requirements, even after several rounds
of discussions.  Specifically, the agency was concerned that CalPac's
responses focused more on what the firm was currently doing under a
different set of requirements, than on how it would meet the distribution
requirements of the RFP.  As an example, the agency notes that CalPac
continued to "explain the requirement to cube out" and "maximize"
container capacity, which is not a requirement of the RFP, but is
something that CalPac currently does under its incumbent contract.  AR,
Tab 17, Technical Evaluation Report, CalPac, at 1-2; Agency Reply to
Protester's Comments at 5-6.  Based on our review of the record, we find
that the agency's concerns are reasonable and support a less than maximum
score under this subfactor.[4]  

   Under the experience subfactor, CalPac contends that it is entitled to
maximum points based on its successful performance as an incumbent. 
However, as noted above, CalPac's incumbent experience pertains to only
two of the four services areas required by the RFP.  In addition, the
agency was concerned that CalPac did not fully recognize the differences
between the current requirements and those required by this RFP.  For
example, the agency notes that CalPac's proposal failed to distinguish the
change in ordering methodology from "cattle pack" to "primal and
sub-primals," which allows the meat departments in each store to order
only those meat cuts that are needed, and did not recognize the shifting
of ordering responsibility from the contractor to store personnel.  In
addition, the pricing structure under the RFP is fixed-price, which is
different from the pricing structure under CalPac's resale ordering
agreement that allows the firm to make price adjustments.  We find that
these considerations provide a reasonable basis not to award CalPac's
proposal maximum points under this subfactor. 

   Finally, CalPac challenges its point scores under each past performance
subfactor, again arguing that its performance as the incumbent for two of
the four areas entitles it to a maximum score.  However, the agency
considered this performance, as well as CalPac's performance on other
relevant contracts, noting that contract references rated CalPac's
performance "from average to excellent."  The agency concluded that, since
CalPac did not receive the highest ratings in all instances, it was not
entitled to the maximum score under the subfactors (although the firm did
receive the highest adjectival rating available, which was "very good"). 
To further explain, the agency noted customer comments reflecting that
CalPac substituted products in some instances, or delivered pork product
with spinal cord, and CalPac representatives were sometimes hard to
reach.  Although CalPac apparently disagrees that these customer comments
warrant less than the maximum score under these subfactors, the
protester's disagreement with the agency's evaluation judgment does not
show that the agency acted unreasonably.  Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531,
Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD P 70 at 3.  Given the reference responses, we
cannot find the assessment of less than maximum scores unreasonable.

   In sum, we find no basis to question the agency's assessment of CalPac's
proposal and since CalPac does not challenge the evaluation of the
awardees' proposals, which received similar scores and ratings,[5] we find
that the agency was reasonable in concluding that the proposals were
essentially equal.  Given that CalPac's proposal was significantly more
expensive than the awardees', we find reasonable the agency's decision to
select the lower-priced proposals for award.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] A fourth offeror also responded to the RFP; however, the evaluation of
its proposal is irrelevant to this decision and is not discussed here.

   [2] For subfactors with the maximum value of 30 points, a point score of
25-30 points warranted a very good rating, while a score of 21-24
warranted a good rating.  For subfactors with a maximum value of 20
points, a point score of 18-20 warranted a very good rating, while a score
of 15-17 warranted a good rating.  AR, TabA 4, Evaluation Plan, at 4, 10. 

   [3] CalPac also initially challenged the evaluation of its proposal under
the quality control subfactor of the technical capability factor, but
abandoned this argument when it failed to respond in its comments after
the agency addressed this issue in its agency report.  See Planning
Systems, Inc., Ba**292312, JulyA 29, 2003, 2004 CPD P 83 atA 6.

   [4] CalPac also argues that even if it relies more heavily on
cross-docking, its distribution plan score is unreasonably low compared to
Tysons because CalPac proposed a shelf life guarantee for beef products of
60 days, whereas Tysons proposed a guarantee of only 45 days (both
offerors offered the same guarantee for pork products).  The guarantee,
however, did not alleviate the agency's concern that CalPac's shipping
approach would decrease shelf life, or that CalPac's emphasis on
maximizing container storage and its current shipping approach did not
demonstrate a full understanding of the requirements of the RFP.   

   [5] Although Washington Beef received a "good" rating for business
relations under the past performance factor, while CalPac received a "very
good" for this subfactor, the agency explains that that the rating was
based on only a 1-point difference between proposals and overall
Washington Beef's past performance was considered very good.  AR, Tab 18,
Source Selection Decision, atA 23.