TITLE: B-296534, National Beef Packing Company, September 1, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296534
DATE: September 1, 2005
**********************************************************
B-296534, National Beef Packing Company, September 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: National Beef Packing Company

   File: B-296534

   Date: September 1, 2005

   James H. Roberts, III, Esq., and Carrol H. Kinsey, Jr., Esq., Van Scoyoc
   Kelly PLLC LLP, for the protester.

   David F. Dowd, Esq., William L. Olsen, Esq., and Patricia H. Becker, Esq.,
   Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, for Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation; and
   Robert H. Koehler, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for Washington Beef, LLC, the
   intervenors.

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

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Challenge to technical and past performance evaluation scores is denied
   where the agency's evaluation of proposals was reasonable and is
   adequately supported by the record.

   2. Protest that agency waived mandatory delivery schedule for an awardee
   is denied where the solicitation allowed offerors to propose alternate
   delivery schedules.

   3. Agency's exchanges with an awardee after receipt of proposals were
   clarifications, which resolved a minor error, and did not constitute
   discussions.

   DECISION

   National Beef Packing Company (National) protests the award of contracts
   to Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation (Cargill) and Washington Beef, LLC
   (Washington) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-05-R-0001,
   issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) for provision of beef
   products. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated
   offerors' technical proposals and past performance, failed to adequately
   document the evaluations, improperly waived a delivery schedule
   requirement for Washington, held improper discussions with Washington, and
   conducted an improper cost/technical trade-off in making the source
   selection.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP sought proposals to provide beef products for DECA commissary
   stores located in the western region of the United States, including
   Alaska and Hawaii. The RFP anticipated award of fixed-price,
   indefinite-delivery, requirements-type contracts for each of the seven
   groups of commissaries that comprise the agency's western region. The RFP
   stated that separate awards would be made for each of the seven groups and
   that offerors were eligible to receive multiple awards. The base
   performance period for each contract is 1 year, with two 1-year option
   periods.

   The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of
   technical capability and past performance, which were equally important,
   and price, which was equal in importance to the two combined non-price
   factors. The technical capability evaluation factor had four subfactors:
   experience, production/distribution, quality control, and additional
   support/promotion; the first three subfactors were of equal importance,
   and the last subfactor was "slightly less important." The past performance
   evaluation factor had four subfactors: timeliness of deliveries,
   conformance with specifications, customer satisfaction, and business
   relations; the first three subfactors were of equal importance, and the
   last subfactor was "slightly less important." The RFP required offerors to
   propose prices for various types of beef products based on estimated
   quantities for each type. The contract schedule requires weekly deliveries
   to the commissaries in each group on specific days of the week during
   specific delivery times.

   Seven offerors submitted proposals by the initial proposal closing date.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Of the seven groups within the
   western region, National's proposal addressed groups one through five. Of
   the five groups for which National submitted proposals, Cargill submitted
   proposals for groups one through four, and Washington submitted proposals
   for groups one and five. The agency conducted initial evaluation of
   proposals and concluded that all offerors' proposals were technically
   acceptable and within the competitive range. Source Selection Decision
   (SSD) at 5. The agency conducted discussions with all offerors and
   requested revised proposals responding to discussion issues. After
   discussions and the receipt of revised proposals, the agency's final
   revised evaluations of the parties to this protest for the five award
   groups protested by National were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                 |  National  |  Cargill   | Washington |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |Technical Capability                                                    |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |Experience                       |     27     |     25     |     28     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Production / Distribution        |     27     |     25     |     27     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Quality Control                  |     26     |     26     |     25     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Additional Support / Promotion   |     17     |     16     |     17     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Total Technical Capability Score |     97     |     92     |     97     |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |Past Performance                                                        |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |Timeliness of Deliveries         |     23     |     25     |     28     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Conformance with Specifications  |     20     |     26     |     28     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Customer Satisfaction            |     20     |     26     |     28     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Business Relations               |     15     |     17     |     18     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Total Past Performance Score     |     78     |     94     |    102     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |OVERALL TOTAL SCORE              |    175     |    186     |    199     |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Evaluated Price for Group 1      |$50,615,479 | [deleted]  |$50,879,976 |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Evaluated Price for Group 2      |$41,183,523 |$41,027,481 |     -      |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Evaluated Price for Group 3      |$46,009,029 |$45,612,513 |     -      |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Evaluated Price for Group 4      |$54,335,643 |$53,382,412 |     -      |
   |---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |Evaluated Price for Group 5      |$31,229,371 |     -      |$30,150,268 |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 15, SSD, at 20-21, 29, and 33.[1]

   As reflected above, the National received the lowest combined
   technical/past performance score of the three offerors, and was higher
   priced for all but one of the five groups for which it submitted
   proposals. Based on the evaluation results and proposed prices, the agency
   conducted price-technical tradeoffs between the offerors' proposals. The
   agency awarded contracts for groups one and five to Washington and groups
   two, three and four to Cargill.[2] SSD at 43-45. National filed this
   protest against the award of contracts for groups one, two, three, four
   and five.

   DISCUSSION

   Technical Evaluation

   National argues that the agency improperly evaluated offerors' proposals
   under the technical evaluation factor by overstating Washington's
   experience. In reviewing a procuring agency's evaluation of an offeror's
   technical proposal, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation
   was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and
   applicable statutes and regulations. L-3 Communications Westwood Corp.,
   B-295126, Jan. 19, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 30 at 5.

   National specifically contends that Washington is a "relative newcomer to
   DECA contracting," citing a trade publication article that describes the
   firm as lacking prior experience with "military contract[s]." National's
   Comments at 3. National argues that Washington's purported lack of
   experience should have resulted in a lower score under the experience
   subfactor. The record, however, shows that Washington demonstrated
   experience in the contract subject matter for both commercial and
   government contracts--including a contract for deliveries to commissaries
   in Guam and Korea for years 2000 to 2004--during the period of past
   performance reviewed by the agency, and that the agency recognized and
   reasonably credited Washington with this experience.[3] AR, Tab 11,
   Washington Past Performance Evaluations; Tab 15, SSD, at 24. We conclude
   that National's allegations regarding Washington's experience are
   unfounded and there is no basis to challenge the agency's evaluations.

   Past Performance Evaluation

   National protests the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of its
   past performance as well as Cargill's. The evaluation of past performance,
   including the agency's determination of the relevance and scope of an
   offeror's performance history to be considered, is a matter of agency
   discretion, which we will not find improper unless unreasonable or
   inconsistent with the solicitation criteria. Family Entm't Servs., Inc.,
   d/b/a/ IMC, B-291997.4, June 10, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 128 at 5. We
   conclude that the agency's evaluation of offerors' past performance was
   reasonable.

   The record shows that the agency informed National of several problems in
   its past performance record during discussions, and that National failed
   to fully address them in its revised proposal. For example the agency
   found that:

   National had delivery issues with some stores in the Western Pacific
   Region and in the Midwest. Most issues had to [do] with late deliveries
   and substitution of products. Although all manufacturers have problems
   with deliveries on occasion, it is the persistent problems that drew the
   board's attention to the problems . . . .

   National Beef continued to have [customer satisfaction] problems with
   locations such as Puerto Rico and Camp Pendelton. Although they have
   devised plans for corrective action of the issues, such as shortages and
   late deliveries, the problems continue to affect the customers. This
   showed the board that although National devised plans to improve their
   customer service their plans have failed to meet the goal and they lack
   making alternative corrective actions when prior ones have failed.

   AR, Tab 12, National Initial Past Performance Consensus Comments, at 1.

   Following discussions, the agency concluded that National's responses to
   discussions did not warrant revision to the initial scores under the four
   past performance subfactors. AR, Tab 12, National Chairperson's
   Re-Evaluation Comments, at 1. National does not dispute the agency's
   determination that the firm failed to adequately address the negative past
   performance information identified during discussions, and thus National
   provides no basis to challenge the reasonableness of the agency's
   evaluation. On this record, we have no basis to question the agency's
   determination that National failed to adequately address negative
   information identified during discussions.

   Despite the negative past performance information, the protester contends
   that the ratings for National were unreasonable because they gave
   disproportionate weight to what National characterizes as a small minority
   of negative references amid the firm's record of a large volume of
   successful deliveries. National contends that our decision in Green Valley
   Transport., Inc., B-285283, Aug. 9, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 133 requires
   agencies to balance the volume of an offeror's negative past performance
   references against the offeror's volume of successful performances.
   National's reliance on Green Valley is misplaced, however, as that
   decision sustained a protest where the agency relied solely on the
   absolute number of negative past performance references without
   considering the total scope and context of the protester's past
   performance record, thereby potentially distorting that record. The
   agency's evaluation here, in contrast, focused on what it deemed
   "persistent problems" with National's performance that had not been
   adequately addressed. The agency did not, as was the case in Green 
   Valley, use the absolute number of negative references as the
   determinative criterion for the evaluation rating, but rather focused on
   patterns of negative performance that had not been addressed. Even if, as
   National contends, these negative patterns pertained to a small percentage
   of contracts overall, we believe that the agency reasonably determined
   that these data represented negative trends that warranted lower past
   performance evaluation scores.

   With regard to Cargill's past performance, National argues that the agency
   gave unreasonably high past performance evaluation scores to this awardee.
   Offerors were instructed to provide commercial past performance references
   for the previous 3 years. RFP, Addendum to FAR sect. 52.212-1 Instructions
   to Offerors--Commercial Items, para. 5, Vol. I, sect. 2. The RFP advised
   offerors that the agency would also obtain references for contracts
   performed for DECA. Id. Although the agency did not specifically state the
   scope of time for evaluation of DECA contracts, the agency also followed a
   3-year scope of review for these references. Supplemental Memorandum of
   Law, July 25, 2005, at 3-4.

   Despite the 3-year limitation generally imposed by the agency during the
   evaluation, the agency's past performance evaluation of Cargill discussed
   that firm's performance of one DECA contract for delivery of beef products
   for the agency's eastern region in the United States during 2000, which
   Cargill identified in its proposal. AR, Tab 15, Cargill Initial Past
   Performance Consensus Comments, at 1. This contract was performed by
   Cargill for approximately nine months prior to its termination as the
   result of a decision by our Office sustaining a protest. See Farmland
   Nat'l Beef, B-286607, B-286604.2, Jan. 24, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 31.

   Cargill's proposal specifically mentioned problems in performing the
   contract, and explained that the problems had been resolved prior to the
   contract's termination. Cargill's proposal stated: [deleted]. AR, Tab 7,
   Cargill Initial Proposal, Vol. II, at 2.

   The agency claims that the eastern region contract reference did not
   affect the determination of Cargill's past performance score. As stated by
   the contracting officer: "[W]hen I was briefed by the TEB [Technical
   Evaluation Board], this past performance information was not considered in
   the final technical score for past performance for Cargill based on the
   information provided to me." Supplemental Contracting Officer's Statement,
   August 12, 2005, at 1. The contracting officer also states that this
   contract did not influence the source selection decision: "[T]he 2000
   Cargill past performance was noted as I was aware of it but had no
   significance in my source selection decision." Id. at 2. The agency's
   statement that its consideration of Cargill's eastern region contract had
   no impact on its evaluation score is, however, at odds with the SSD:

   Cargill (formerly known as Excel) received a lower past performance score
   than Washington Beef due to some start-up problems under a formal beef
   contract for the Eastern Region, the problems were addressed and
   performance became satisfactory before the contract was cancelled.

   AR, Tab 15, SSD, at 26 (emphasis added).

   Notwithstanding the agency's inconsistent statements, the SSD indicates
   that, if anything, there was a negative impact on Cargill's past
   performance score, i.e., Cargill received a "lower score due to" its
   performance of the eastern region contract. Id. The consensus evaluation
   documents note that Cargill experienced "a few issues with ordering and
   delivery of beef products at the start-up" of the contract, but concludes
   that "through Cargill's agents they were able to resolve those issues and
   appeared to do quite well in providing product to our commissaries during
   the remaining performance period." AR, Tab 13, Cargill Initial Past
   Performance Consensus Comments, at 1.

   National first argues that the agency should not have included any
   discussion of the eastern region contract in Cargill's past performance
   evaluation because the contract was performed more than 3 years ago. As
   explained above, however, the 3-year scope for government contract
   references was determined as part of the agency's internal evaluation
   process. The RFP stated that offerors should provide only commercial
   references for the prior 3 years; it did not explicitly inform offerors
   that the agency would limit consideration of government contract past
   performance references, such as Cargill's eastern region contract, to 3
   years. RFP, Addendum to FAR sect. 52.212-1 Instructions to
   Offerors--Commercial Items, para. 5, Vol. I, sect. 2. Under these
   circumstances, the agency's consideration of Cargill's eastern region
   contract was not contrary to the stated RFP evaluation criteria.

   In any case, there is no indication that Cargill benefited from the
   agency's evaluation of the eastern region contract. To the extent the
   eastern region contract past performance information had an effect on the
   agency's evaluation of Cargill, the protester does not demonstrate that it
   had a positive effect on Cargill's rating and, thus, National has not
   shown that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions.[4] See
   McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see
   Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   Finally, National argues that the agency unreasonably determined that
   Cargill had adequately addressed initial difficulties experienced under
   the eastern region contract, and thus, to the extent Cargill's performance
   under the contract was considered, it should have resulted in a lower past
   performance score. As discussed above, the agency concluded that Cargill's
   initial problems with contract performance were remedied by the time the
   contract was terminated. AR, Tab 13, Cargill Initial Past Performance
   Consensus Comments, at 1. Furthermore, the record indicates that the
   agency reduced Cargill's past performance score based on its performance
   of the eastern region contract. We think that the agency's evaluation was
   reasonable in this regard.

   Waiver of Delivery Schedule

   National argues that the agency improperly waived the required delivery
   schedule for two areas of Washington's proposal regarding delivery for
   group 5, in Hawaii. National contends that Washington's proposal exceeded
   the maximum delivery time, and that the agency was required to either
   reject Washington's proposal or allow offerors an opportunity to submit
   revised proposals based on Washington's alternative delivery proposal. We
   conclude that Washington's proposal was acceptable under the RFP and that
   the agency did not waive any requirements.

   The agency instructed offerors that deliveries must comply with the
   schedule set forth in Attachment B to the RFP. As relevant to this protest
   issue, deliveries for commissaries in Hawaii were required within 14 days
   after an order was placed:

   DELIVERY SCHEDULE: The contractor shall deliver in accordance with and not
   deviate from the delivery schedule at Attachment B, without written
   consent from the Contracting Officer. Delivery is required within 7
   calendar days after an order is placed for CONUS stores. Delivery is
   required within 14 calendar days after an order is placed for Alaska and
   Hawaii stores. Changes to the delivery schedule must be initiated by the
   commissary management, through the Region and forwarded to the Contracting
   Officer for approval. Deliveries other than on the days and time specified
   in the schedule, without a valid change, are considered late and will be
   considered in past performance history.

   RFP, Addendum to FAR sect. 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions, para.
   7.

   Offerors were instructed that they must certify in their proposals that
   deliveries would comply with the Attachment B delivery schedule:

   Review the DeCA West Region Delivery Schedule at Attachment B. This is the
   preferred delivery schedule and at a minimum, compliance with this
   schedule is mandatory for consideration for contract award. Complete the
   Delivery Schedule Compliance Certification at Attachment C and return with
   your proposal in this section of Volume I. Additionally, an offeror may
   propose an alternative delivery schedule for consideration. The alternate
   delivery schedule, and an explanation of the differences between the
   schedule at Attachment B and the proposed schedule, and its benefits must
   be clearly stated and submitted with your proposal in this section of
   Volume I. The government is not obligated to accept an alternate delivery
   schedule. The Contracting Officer will provide notification if a proposed
   alternate delivery schedule is determined to be acceptable.

   RFP, Addendum to FAR sect. 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial
   Items, para. 5, Vol. I, sect. 2 (emphasis added). Reading these provisions
   in conjunction, the RFP required offerors to certify that they would make
   deliveries to Hawaii within 14 days of an order, but, provided that they
   could otherwise meet this requirement, the RFP also allowed offerors to
   propose alternatives or deviations from this schedule, subject to the
   approval of the agency.

   National points to two passages in Washington's proposal that it contends
   required a waiver of RFP requirements by the agency. First, National
   argues that Washington requested a waiver of the 14-day delivery
   requirement for deliveries to Hawaii:

   For Group 5, Washington Beef would request 14 to 17 days from ordering
   date to the store delivery. This is to assure the freshest product
   available is delivered to our patrons while increasing shelf life once at
   the store. If 14 days were strictly adhered to, products on occasion would
   possibly need to be pulled and shipped from existing inventories. This
   would mean that Washington Beef could not "produce to order" properly
   utilizing our Military production and distribution procedures.

   AR, Tab 8, Washington Proposal, sect. 2, at 114.

   The agency accepted Washington's proposal, concluding that the 14-17 day
   delivery was acceptable provided that the age/shelf life of the products
   delivered complied with RFP requirements. AR, Tab 8, Agency Letter to
   Washington, Feb. 11, 2005, at 2.

   We conclude that Washington's alternative proposal request was permitted
   by the terms of the RFP. Washington submitted the required certification
   at Attachment C, stating that it would meet the delivery schedule at
   Attachment B, but also requested an alternative delivery schedule,
   explaining that this schedule would allow it to provide better products to
   the agency. Because the RFP anticipated alternative proposals, the
   agency's acceptance of Washington's request for a delivery schedule of
   14-17 days was not a waiver of an RFP requirement and the agency was thus
   not required to allow other offerors the opportunity to adopt Washington's
   proposed approach.[5] The fact that National chose not to submit its own
   alternative schedule provides no basis to challenge the agency's
   acceptance of Washington's alternative schedule.

   National next argues that the following portion of Washington's proposal
   requested a deviation from the RFP requirements for deliveries to Hawaii
   in response to out-of-cycle or emergency orders. The RFP instructed
   offerors to "[d]escribe, in detail, how your firm handles interruptions to
   the distribution channel, such as changes to orders placed, out-of-cycle
   orders and/or emergency orders." RFP, Addendum to FAR sect. 52.212-1
   Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items, para. 5, Vol. II, sect. 2(5).
   Washington's proposal stated as follows:

   All out-of-cycle or emergency orders from any DeCA commissary can be
   placed simply by calling our home office, sending e-mail or speaking with
   one of our in store representatives . . . . Concerning the commissary
   stores of Hawaii, over the past 10 years we have proven our ability to
   deliver all DeCA requests for emergency, quick ship and off-line orders to
   date. Given this solicitation requires shipping and store delivery, for
   Hawaii we would require a minimum of 14 days to a maximum of 17 days as
   ocean container arrangements are needed.

   AR, Tab 8, Washington Proposal, sect. 2 at, 106.

   National argues that the Washington proposal indicates that the firm
   cannot meet a 14-day requirement for out-of-cycle deliveries to Hawaii,
   and thus the agency's acceptance of Washington's proposal constituted an
   improper waiver of the RFP delivery requirements. The agency states that
   it did not consider out-of-cycle or emergency orders to require compliance
   with the Attachment B delivery schedule because those orders are
   "dependent on circumstances surrounding any interruption in the normal
   order cycle." Agency Supplemental Responses, Aug. 22, 2005, at 1. The
   agency thus contends that out-of-cycle or emergency orders do not need to
   meet the Attachment B delivery schedule requirement of 14 days from order
   to delivery to Hawaii. Id.

   It is true, as the protester notes, that RFP stated that "[t]he contractor
   shall delivery in accordance with and not deviate from the delivery
   schedule at Attachment B, without written consent from the Contracting
   Officer." RFP, Addendum to FAR sect. 52.212-4 Contract Terms and
   Conditions, para. 7. Nonetheless, we think that the agency's view that
   offerors were not required to comply with the Attachment B delivery
   schedule in responding to out-of-cycle or emergency orders was reasonable,
   because, as the agency explains, an out-of-cycle or emergency order is one
   that does not accord to the Attachment B delivery schedule. Under these
   circumstances, Washington's proposal is properly viewed as responding to
   the requirement to explain how offerors would address out-of-cycle orders;
   its statement that it would require 14-17 days to meet such orders did not
   fail to meet any RFP requirement and thus the agency did not waive any
   such requirement.

   Discussions

   National contends that exchanges between the agency and Washington
   regarding ground beef requirements constituted improper discussions. After
   receiving offerors' final proposals, the agency contacted Washington,
   noting that Washington had labeled a proposal item that appeared to meet
   the requirements for "coarse ground beef" as "case ready ground beef."
   Supplemental Memorandum of Law, July 25, 2005, at 7. In its response to
   the agency, Washington confirmed that it intended for the proposal item to
   be labeled "coarse ground beef." AR, Tab 8, Letter from Washington to
   Agency; Supplemental Memorandum of Law, July 25, 2005, at 7-8. We do not
   view this exchange between the agency and Washington as constituting
   discussions.

   FAR sect. 15.306 describes a spectrum of exchanges that may take place
   between an agency and an offeror during negotiated procurements.
   Clarifications are "limited exchanges" between the agency and offerors
   that may allow offerors to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to
   resolve minor or clerical errors. FAR sect. 15.306(a)(2). Discussions, on
   the other hand, occur when an agency indicates to an offeror significant
   weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal that could be
   altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal's potential for
   award. FAR sect. 15.306(d)(3). When an agency conducts discussions with
   one offeror, it must conduct discussions with all other offerors in the
   competitive range. FAR sect. 15.305(d)(1). The "acid test" for deciding
   whether discussions have been held is whether it can be said that an
   offeror was provided the opportunity to revise or modify its proposal.
   Park Tower Mgmt. Ltd., B-295589, B-295589.2, Mar. 22, 2005, 2005 CPD para.
   77 at 7; Priority One Servs., Inc., B-288836, B-288836.2, Dec. 17, 2001,
   2002 CDP para. 79 at 5.

   The substance of Washington's proposal regarding the coarse ground beef
   requirement, i.e. shelf life from pack, price, and delivery, remained
   unchanged. Instead, the agency suspected, and Washington confirmed, that
   the term "case ready" had been misapplied to the proposal item describing
   Washington's commitment to meet the requirements for "coarse" ground beef.
   These exchanges were clarifications and not discussions, as they were
   "limited exchanges" that resolved a minor or clerical error. Washington
   was not given an opportunity to materially change its proposal because it
   was clear that the terms and details of the proposal for coarse ground
   beef did not change, but rather the label applied to those terms and
   details was corrected. Because all of the evidence in the proposal as
   submitted indicated that this was a mistaken label, we conclude that the
   agency reasonably inquired and received clarification from Washington.

   Best Value

   National argues that the alleged evaluation errors discussed above and the
   agency's destruction of the underlying evaluator documents renders the
   source selection decisions unreasonable.[6] Because we find no basis to
   challenge the agency's evaluation of offerors and conclude that the
   documentation of the evaluations was adequate, there is no basis to
   challenge the source selection decisions. Furthermore, the SSD reasonably
   identifies the basis for the cost-technical tradeoffs, including
   discriminators between offerors' proposals that formed the basis for the
   source selections.[7]

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency's evaluation of proposals assigned total possible point
   values for each subfactor, consistent with their disclosed weights in the
   RFP: experience--30, production/distribution--30, quality control--30,
   additional support/promotional plan--20, timeliness of deliveries--30,
   conformance with specifications--30, customer satisfaction--30, and
   business relations--20. AR, Tab 15, SSD, at 4.

   [2] The agency also awarded group six to Washington, and group seven to
   California Pacific Associates. SSD at 43-45.

   [3] Contrary to National's arguments, National Comments at 3, specific
   experience with DECA was not a prerequisite for a positive evaluation
   under the experience subfactor, nor, for that matter, was it a
   prerequisite for a positive evaluation under the separate past performance
   factor. See RFP--Addendum to FAR sect. 52-212-1 Instructions to
   Offerors--Commercial Items, para. 5, Vol. II, sect. 1; RFP, Addendum to
   FAR sect. 52.212-2 Evaluation--Commercial Items, para. 4.

   [4] National additionally argues that the agency relied solely on the
   eastern region contract in determining Cargill's past performance score.
   The record and the agency's evaluations, however, clearly document other
   past performance references for Cargill within the 3-year scope of
   performance. Cargill's past performance references include four references
   for commissaries and four references for commercial contracts. AR, Tab 10,
   Cargill Past Performance References. Furthermore, the agency's evaluation
   of Cargill's past performance reflects evaluation and consideration of
   these contracts. AR, Tab 13, Cargill Initial Past Performance Consensus
   Comments, at 1.

   [5] National additionally argues that the RFP language stating that "[t]he
   Contracting Officer will provide notification if a proposed alternate
   delivery schedule is determined to be acceptable," means that the agency
   was obligated to tell all offerors in the event that any offeror's
   alternative schedule is approved. National Supplemental Comments, July 11,
   2005, at 13. We do not believe that National's interpretation of this
   provision is reasonable: the language simply indicates that the agency
   would inform the offeror who proposed an alternate schedule whether the
   schedule was acceptable.

   [6] National argues that the agency's evaluation documents were inadequate
   because the agency destroyed the documents prepared by individual
   evaluators, and provided in its agency report only the consensus
   evaluation documents. The destruction of individual evaluator documents
   does not render an agency's evaluation unreasonable per se; rather, we
   will consider the record adequate if the consensus documents and source
   selection decision sufficiently document the agency's rationale for the
   evaluations. Joint Mgmt. and Tech. Servs., B-294229; B-294229.2, Sept. 22,
   2004, 2004 CPD para. 208 at 3-4; Global Eng'g and Constr., LLC,
   B-290288.3, B-290288.4, Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 180 at 3 n.3. We
   conclude that the agency's documentation here is reasonable because the
   consensus documents and source selection decision document adequately
   detail the strengths and weaknesses that formed the basis for the agency's
   evaluation ratings for each offeror and the selection decisions.

   [7] National has raised other challenges to the agency's evaluation of
   proposals in relation to the various issues discussed above. We have
   reviewed all of National's protest allegations and find all of them to be
   either untimely or without merit.