TITLE:  Front Line Apparel Group, B-295989, June 1, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295989
DATE:  June 1, 2005
**********************************************************************
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: Front Line Apparel Group

   File: B-295989

   Date: June 1, 2005

   Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, for the protester.

   James J. McCullough, Esq., and Steven A. Alerding, Esq., Fried, Frank,
Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, for Tullahoma Industries, LLC, an
intervenor.

   John P. Patkus, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.

   Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest is sustained where record shows that agency improperly engaged in
a second round of discussions with awardees, but not protester; while
there is nothing inherently improper in an agency's conducting additional
discussions relating to previously-discussed issues with only one or a
limited number of offerors where the agency has remaining concerns
relating to those issues, where agency conducts multiple rounds of
discussions relating to the same issues with one offeror, it must afford
other similarly-situated offerors the same benefit of additional
discussions.

   DECISION

   Front Line Apparel Group (FLAG) protests the award of several contracts
under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0100-04-R-0135, issued by the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to acquire Army combat uniform trousers. 
FLAG maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals and engaged in
unequal discussions among the offerors.

   We sustain the protest.

   The RFP contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity contracts to supply army combat uniforms.  A portion
of the requirement was set aside for small businesses and the balance was
solicited on an unrestricted basis; FLAG's protest concerns only contract
line item numbers (CLIN) 0011 and 0012, which were for trousers and were
set aside for competition among small businesses. 

   The RFP advised that the agency would award one or more contracts on a
"best value" basis, considering price and several non-price criteria.  The
non-price evaluation criteria for the set-aside portion were, in
descending order of importance, product demonstration models (PDM),
experience/past performance, surge and sustainment, and DLA mentoring
business agreement program.  For purposes of the evaluation, the agency
subdivided the PDM, experience/past performance and surge sustainment
criteria into several subfactors.[1]  For the PDM criterion, the
subfactors were visual, dimensional and manufacturing operations; for the
experience/past performance criterion, the subfactors were delivery,
quality, customer satisfaction and experience with the item and, if the
firm was manufacturing the item for the first time, whether its previous
performance demonstrated its ability to successfully produce the item; for
the surge and sustainment criterion, the subfactors were production plan,
production schedule, equipment and facilities and management plan. 
Proposals were assigned adjectival ratings of exceptional, very good,
satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory for the PDM, experience/past
performance and surge sustainment criteria.  Under the DLA mentoring
business agreement program criterion (not at issue in the protest), the
agency assigned numeric rankings based on its assessment of the relative
quality of the proposals.  The non-price considerations were,
collectively, significantly more important than price, but to the extent
that proposals were found closer to equal under the non-price
considerations, price would become more important. 

   DLA received numerous proposals in response to the RFP and, after
evaluating them, established an initial competitive range for each CLIN
for purposes of conducting discussions.  The agency then issued discussion
letters to the competitive range offerors seeking revisions to the firms'
technical proposals.  After evaluating these responses, the agency further
reduced the competitive range and requested final proposal revisions (FPR)
from the remaining competitive range offerors.  (Prior to issuing the
request for FPRs, the agency sent two of the competitive range offerors a
second letter reopening discussions.  These interim letters are discussed
in detail below.)

   After receiving and evaluating the FPRs, the agency assigned the following
ratings to the proposals:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                 |FLAG     |AC Fabricated|Tullahoma|Rutter Rex|Fox      |
|-----------------+---------+-------------+---------+----------+---------|
|PDM              |[deleted]|[deleted]    |[deleted]|[deleted] |[deleted]|
|-----------------+---------+-------------+---------+----------+---------|
|Exp./Past Perf.  |[deleted]|[deleted]    |[deleted]|[deleted] |[deleted]|
|-----------------+---------+-------------+---------+----------+---------|
|Surge/Sustainment|[deleted]|[deleted]    |[deleted]|[deleted] |[deleted]|
|-----------------+---------+-------------+---------+----------+---------|
|Overall          |[deleted]|[deleted]    |[deleted]|[deleted] |[deleted]|
|-----------------+---------+-------------+---------+----------+---------|
|CLIN 0011 Price  |[deleted]|[deleted]    |[deleted]|[deleted] |[deleted]|
|-----------------+---------+-------------+---------+----------+---------|
|CLIN 0012 Price  |[deleted]|[deleted]    |[deleted]|[deleted] |[deleted]|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), exh. 37, at 23, 27-28.  On the basis of these
evaluation results, the agency awarded contracts under CLIN 0011 to AC
Fabricated Products, Tullahoma Industries and Rutter Rex, Inc, and under
CLIN 0012 to Fox Apparel, Inc.  AR, exh. 43, at 42-50.

   FLAG asserts that the agency misevaluated its proposal under the past
performance and surge and sustainment criteria, and that the evaluation
overall was inconsistent with the criteria weightings under the evaluation
scheme announced in the solicitation.  In addition, FLAG asserts that the
agency improperly engaged in unequal discussions.  We have reviewed all of
FLAG's arguments and, except for FLAG's argument relating to the conduct
of discussions, find them to be without merit.  We sustain the protest as
to FLAG's discussions argument.

   In support of its discussions challenge, FLAG notes that the record shows
that two of the offerors, AC Fabricated and Tullahoma, received a second
discussion letter, and that these two offerors--but not FLAG--thus were
provided a second opportunity to respond to the agency's concerns relating
to their proposals.  The agency and intervenor, on the other hand,
maintain that there was nothing improper in the agency's conducting
multiple rounds of discussions with some, but not all of the offerors;
they assert that agencies properly may conduct an additional round of
discussions relating to issues that remain outstanding after the first
round of discussions. 

   We agree with FLAG that the agency engaged in impermissible discussions. 
Discussions must be meaningful, equitable, and not misleading.  ACS Gov't
Solutions Group, Inc., B-282098 et al., June 2, 1999, 99-1 CPD paragraph
106 at 13-14.  While the agency and intervenor are correct that there is
nothing inherently improper in an agency's conducting additional
discussions relating to previously-discussed issues with only one or a
limited number of offerors where the agency has remaining concerns
relating to those issues, U-Tech Serv's. Corp.; K-Mar Indus., Inc.,
B-284183.3              B-284183.4, Oct. 6, 2000, 2002 CPD paragraph 78 at
8, agencies may not engage in what amounts to disparate treatment of the
competing offerors.  Thus, where an agency conducts multiple rounds of
discussions relating to the same issues with one offeror, it must afford
other similarly-situated offerors the same benefit of additional
discussions.  Martin Elec., Inc., B-290846.3, B-290846.4, Dec. 23, 2002,
2003 CPD paragraph 6 at 8-9.

   Here, the agency conducted discussions with FLAG in the areas of past
performance and surge and sustainment, after which it rated the firm's
proposal [deleted] in both areas.  Had the agency done nothing further, we
would have no basis to object to its actions, since agencies are not
required to afford offerors multiple rounds of discussions in areas that
have been the subject of prior discussions where the agency's concerns
remain unresolved.  Portfolio Mgmt. Disposition Group,              
B-293105.7, Nov. 12, 2004, 2005 CPD paragraph __ at 2.  However, as FLAG
alleges, the agency afforded two of the competitive range offerors
additional discussions in areas that had previously been discussed with
those firms, but did not extend the same opportunity to FLAG. 

   Specifically, the record shows that the agency provided AC Fabricated
initial discussion questions in the areas of [deleted], but the firm
apparently did not submit a timely reply to the agency's initial
questions.  Consequently, the agency afforded AC Fabricators a second
opportunity to revise its proposal in these areas.  AR, exh. 16.  This
second round of discussions resulted in AC Fabricators' proposal being
upgraded from [deleted] to [deleted] under the [deleted] criterion, which
in turn resulted in the firm's overall rating being upgraded from
[deleted] to [deleted].  AR, exh. 13, at 9-10; AR, exh. 37, at 23.  With
regard to Tullahoma, the record shows that the agency initially discussed
[deleted] with the firm, and then afforded it a second opportunity to
provide additional information in the area of [deleted].  AR, exh. 17. 
While the additional information did not result in a change in the firm's
adjectival rating under the [deleted] criterion, the record shows that it
did result in the agency's source selection official distinguishing
Tullahoma's proposal from FLAG's under that criterion; Tullahoma's
proposal ultimately was rated [deleted] to FLAG's based, in part, on the
additional information submitted by Tullahoma during the second round of
discussions.  AR, exh. 43, at 44. 

   In view of the foregoing considerations, we find that the agency's actions
amounted to disparate treatment of the competing offerors.  Since there is
no way to determine how FLAG's proposal would have been evaluated had the
firm been afforded additional discussions in the areas of [deleted], we
further find that FLAG was prejudiced by the disparate treatment.  We
sustain FLAG's protest on this basis.

   We recommend that the agency reopen discussions with all competitive range
offerors and obtain and evaluate revised proposals.  After performing its
reevaluation, the agency should make a new source selection, terminate the
contracts awarded, if appropriate, and make award to those concerns found
to be in line for award.  Finally, we recommend that FLAG be reimbursed
the costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest, including
reasonable attorneys' fees. 

   4 C.F.R. Section 21.8(d)(1) (2005).  FLAG's certified claim for costs,
detailing the time spent and the costs incurred must be submitted to the
agency within 60 days of receiving of our decision.  4 C.F.R. Section
21.8(f)(1).

   The protest is sustained.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The RFP did not outline the subfactors and there is no information
elsewhere in the record specifically addressing the relative weights of
the subfactors; we conclude that they were equal in importance.  SOS
Interpreting, Ltd., B-287477.2, May 16, 2001, 2001 CPD paragraph 84 at 4.