TITLE: B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5, Propper International, Inc., March 19, 2007
BNUMBER: B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5
DATE: March 19, 2007
*******************************************************************************
B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5, Propper International, Inc., March 19, 2007

   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: Propper International, Inc.

   File: B-297950.3; B-297950.4; B-297950.5

   Date: March 19, 2007

   Ronald K. Henry, Esq., Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester.

   Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, for Tennier Industries,
   Inc., an intervenor.

   Maria Ventresca, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center
   Philadelphia, for the agency.

   Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest of evaluation of proposals and award to offeror with slightly
   higher-priced, higher technically rated proposal is denied where the
   record shows that the evaluation and source selection were reasonable and
   consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

   DECISION

   Propper International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tennier
   Industries, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-04-R-0151,
   issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center
   Philadelphia (DSCP), for all-purpose environmental camouflage system
   (APECS) parkas and trousers. The protester primarily contends that the
   past performance evaluation and source selection determination were
   unreasonable. The protester asserts that the agency's attempts to find
   past performance references for the firm's previous work were
   insufficient. The protester also contends that given its previous
   experience manufacturing and participating in the development of the APECS
   items, commendations it received for those efforts during part of the
   RFP's rating period, and its lower price, its proposal should have been
   considered the best value for award.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on October 4, 2004, contemplated the award of an
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and 2
   option years. Award was to be made to the firm that submitted the proposal
   deemed to offer the best value to the agency, with the technical factors
   combined being significantly more important than price. RFP at 90. The
   RFP's technical evaluation factors, listed in descending order of
   importance, were: (1) product demonstration model (PDM) (including testing
   of each offeror's parkas, trousers and cloth for compliance with technical
   specifications); (2) past performance (including consideration of the
   firm's adherence to delivery schedules, quality of product/service,
   manufacturing experience, and customer satisfaction); (3) surge capacity
   (including capability to increase monthly production by 50 percent); (4)
   socioeconomic evaluation (including planned development of and
   participation by small businesses); (5) DLA mentoring business agreements
   program (including planned tutoring of and assistance from small
   businesses); and (6) opportunities for Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act
   entities (including subcontracting opportunities for qualified disabled
   entities).

   Offerors were instructed to provide detailed technical proposals to
   demonstrate the ability to meet the RFP's requirements; the RFP also
   emphasized that the failure to provide the required information could
   negatively impact their evaluation. The RFP emphasized the importance of
   the past performance evaluation, the second most important factor for
   award; in this regard, the RFP made clear that the agency would be
   assessing and relying on the awardee's demonstrated ability to timely
   deliver quality products requiring minimal agency oversight. Id. at 81.
   The past performance evaluation was to assess the efficiency of production
   methods and the effectiveness of quality control procedures to reduce
   delinquencies and administrative costs to the agency; offerors were
   advised that "those offerors who consistently demonstrate an ability to
   deliver on time while consistently improving the quality of the products
   they produce will receive more favorable consideration than those who do
   not." Id. For the evaluation of past performance, offerors were required
   to detail their experiences providing the same items or items similar in
   complexity within the past 2 years, and provide the name, address, and
   telephone number of the point of contact, the dollar value, date and
   quantity, and period of performance of the contract or delivery order, as
   well as a brief description of the item. For government contracts, each
   offeror was to detail, among other things, the contracting officer,
   delivery and quality of performance (including whether performance was
   ahead of or behind schedule), the reason for any delivery schedule
   revisions, any delinquencies, and any mitigating circumstances. Id. at 84,
   92. For first time manufacturers of the items, information was to be
   provided to demonstrate the offeror's ability to perform without
   significant quality or schedule problems.

   Adjectival ratings were assigned to the proposals under each technical
   evaluation criterion. For the evaluation of the PDM (the only one of the
   RFP's six technical evaluation factors under which the Propper proposal
   was considered to any degree technically superior to Tennier's proposal),
   Propper's proposal was found to be slightly stronger technically because
   it had two fewer defects than the Tennier proposal; both firms' PDM
   defects were considered minor and easily correctable during production.

   For past performance, the second most important factor, Tennier's proposal
   was rated exceptional and considered substantially stronger than
   Propper's. The rating was mainly due to the level of detail provided by
   Tennier about its highly favorable performance of substantially similar
   work demonstrating timely delivery (meeting or exceeding delivery schedule
   requirements) of a much larger quantity of extended cold weather
   camouflage system (ECWCS) garments (considered substantially similar to
   the APECS items in terms of sewing operations and seam sealing and testing
   requirements) with no quality problems. Tennier's delivery of a multitude
   of modular sleeping bag systems, also found to be similar in terms of the
   need for seam sealing and testing, also reflected highly favorable
   performance by the firm.

   Propper, which was rated satisfactory for past performance, failed to
   detail its APECS contract work (other to identify a single point of
   contact who did not respond to agency requests for performance information
   for the firm). As a result, the firm was evaluated primarily on
   information contained in the agency's contract performance records,
   information obtained from an APECS reference found by the agency (who was
   only generally familiar with Propper's prior performance under several
   delivery orders), and other references cited in the firm's proposal for
   less relevant work. The agency's past performance evaluation for Propper
   noted numerous delivery delays by the firm (many considered inexcusably
   late); while the quality of its APECS items was considered favorable, two
   significant quality defects (stemming from gluing problems) were cited in
   connection with a less relevant contract for the production of protective
   aprons and hoods.

   For the third most important technical evaluation factor, surge capacity,
   the firms' proposals were considered comparable. For the three remaining
   technical evaluation factors (socioeconomic considerations, DLA mentoring
   business agreements, and JWOD opportunities), Tennier's proposal was
   ranked technically superior to Propper's proposal.

   In considering the firms' proposals and the evaluation results, the source
   selection authority determined that Tennier's proposal was technically
   superior to the Propper proposal under four of the six technical factors
   and that its technical superiority warranted the payment of the slight
   price premium (less than 4 percent) associated with an award to the firm.
   Based on the conclusion that Tennier's proposal offered the best value to
   the agency, award was made to Tennier for $25,202,763.36. This protest
   followed.

   Propper challenges the agency's evaluation of its past performance as
   unreasonable; the firm contends that in light of its previous experience
   manufacturing and participating in the development of APECS items, its
   receipt of a large business DLA Vendor of the Year award and an agency
   certificate of appreciation in 2004, and its explanations during
   discussions regarding its late deliveries, the agency should have given
   the firm's past performance a higher rating. While the protester does not
   refute the agency's assertion that its proposal failed to provide detailed
   information as required by the RFP for evaluation of its past performance,
   it generally contends that the agency was required to conduct a more
   comprehensive investigation to obtain additional past performance
   references for the firm.

   In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source
   selections, our Office examines the record to determine whether the
   agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation
   criteria and applicable procurement laws. See Abt Assocs., Inc.,
   B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 223 at 4. It is an offeror's
   obligation to submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to
   evaluate, and an offeror fails to do so at its own risk. See United Def.
   LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 75 at 19. A
   protester's mere disagreement with the evaluation provides no basis to
   question the reasonableness of the evaluators' judgments. See Citywide
   Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov.
   15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 10.

   Here, offerors were instructed to provide details of their past
   performance for evaluation. Our review of the record confirms the agency's
   view that Propper failed to provide sufficient detail in its proposal to
   demonstrate the favorable performance it now claims for its APECS items
   and other relevant work; the firm did not, for instance, list contacts for
   all of its APECS work, and it did not elaborate in its proposal on the
   delivery and quality of the items it provided under prior contracts. Using
   the limited past performance information the firm did provide, the agency
   contacted at least one reference outside of the agency familiar with
   Propper's delivery of APECS garments, and one reference within the agency
   who was also familiar with some of Propper's prior APECS work. While the
   first contact reported that the customer was satisfied with the firm's
   performance, the agency's own experience with Propper's past APECS
   contract was that the items were delivered significantly late due to the
   firm's inability to meet an accelerated delivery schedule it had agreed
   to. To the extent the protester contends that the agency was required to
   conduct additional research to locate more knowledgeable, and possibly
   more favorable, references for the firm, Propper is incorrect. There is no
   legal requirement that an agency attempt to contact all past performance
   references that may be listed in a proposal or may be available for each
   contract performed by a contractor. See, e.g., Dragon Servs., Inc.,
   B-255354, Feb. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 151 at 8. Here, the record shows
   that the agency reasonably considered past performance information it
   obtained from sources identified to it as knowledgeable about the firm's
   prior contract work, as well as information close at hand regarding its
   own experience with the firm. Given these circumstances, including
   Propper's failure to persuasively demonstrate its ability to meet all
   contract performance requirements by submitting the required detailed past
   performance information, we cannot find that the agency was obliged to
   investigate the firm's performance beyond the information it considered.

   Our review of the record also confirms that the agency performed a
   comprehensive evaluation of the overall proposals, and provides no basis
   to question the reasonableness of the evaluation of Propper's past
   performance or the comparative evaluation supporting the award to Tennier.
   Despite Propper's contention that only it, and not Tennier, had previously
   manufactured the APECS garments, the record supports the reasonableness of
   the evaluators' and SSA's determinations that the larger quantity of ECWCS
   garments successfully provided by Tennier demonstrated that firm's ability
   to perform the work under the current RFP. As reported by the evaluators,
   the ECWCS items are substantially similar in important manufacturing
   aspects, including the use of similar cloth and sewing operations, and the
   skillful application of seam sealing tape; both items also require
   successful end-item hydrostatic resistance testing. Moreover, the record
   shows that the awardee's performance of its large volume ECWCS contracts
   was completed on or ahead of schedule, providing further support for the
   exceptional past performance rating assigned to it.

   The record is also clear that Propper's past performance was reasonably
   rated as inferior to Tennier's. At least 19 of Propper's prior contracts
   and delivery orders for relevant items were considered inexcusably late.
   While we recognize that Propper contends that its late deliveries can all
   be explained by the firm, and should be excused for a variety of reasons,
   our review of the agency's consideration of the protester's explanations,
   at least for many of the cited contract actions, supports the agency's
   conclusions of deficient performance in terms of late deliveries. For
   instance, while Propper argues that it should not be held liable for
   problems attributable to its suppliers' inability to timely perform or
   acquire required materials, it is generally reasonable to hold a prime
   contractor accountable for the performance of its suppliers. See Marathon
   Watch Co., Ltd., B-247043, Apr. 23, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 384 at 4.
   Further, while Propper contends it should not be held responsible for a
   late delivery of APECS items to the agency resulting from its agreement to
   an accelerated delivery schedule that, Propper now maintains, could not be
   met from a "cold" production start, as the agency points out, the terms of
   that delivery order were mutually agreed upon by the agency and Propper
   and, in accordance with those terms, the firm was reasonably held
   responsible for failure to meet the scheduled delivery.

   While Propper contends that the agency failed to recognize that it had
   received a DLA large business Vendor of the Year award in 2004, as well as
   a certificate of appreciation for certain contract performance, including
   consideration of successful contract deliveries, the agency reports, and
   our review confirms, that the awards were considered but not found
   controlling in light of other adverse past performance information
   available to the evaluators. The agency also reasonably explains that the
   nominations for the awards were not subject to as stringent an evaluation
   as is required for this procurement and that, in any event, the awards
   only reflected performance of contracts known to the agency at that time
   and for only a portion of the 2-year past performance rating period
   applicable to this RFP. The record provides no basis to question the
   reasonableness of the agency's review in this regard. [2]

   Additionally, while Propper contends the agency failed to give it
   sufficient credit for the high quality of APECS items it now contends it
   has delivered, and instead downgraded the firm for quality defects found
   in a less relevant apron and hood contract, that information was not
   included by the firm in its proposal, as required by the RFP here.
   Accordingly, we cannot agree with Propper that its performance has been
   shown to approach the exceptional level of performance consistently shown
   by the awardee, including Tennier's outstanding delivery record of
   high-quality items in production amounts far exceeding those claimed by
   the protester.

   In sum, given the terms of the RFP, where technical superiority was
   significantly more important than price for award, and Tennier's
   demonstrated technical superiority under four of the six technical
   evaluation factors, we have no basis to question the reasonableness of the
   agency's determination, consistent with the RFP's evaluation terms, that
   the awardee's overall technical superiority and slight price premium
   reasonably were determined to offer the best value to the agency.
   Accordingly, the protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] Propper earlier protested the initial award to Tennier under the RFP.
   Following alternate dispute resolution procedures conducted by our Office
   in that protest, in which we expressed concern about the agency's apparent
   failure to properly consider the relevance of offerors' past performance
   information, the agency chose to conduct additional discussions with the
   offerors whose proposals were in the competitive range regarding the past
   performance information considered in the evaluation. Subsequently, a new
   past performance evaluation and comparative evaluation of proposals was
   conducted. That evaluation and the agency's subsequent award determination
   are at issue here.

   [2] As part of the past performance evaluations, the agency also generally
   considered the offerors' commitment to socioeconomic goals, including work
   given to small businesses. Information available for Propper, a large
   business, indicated that the firm had an acceptable commitment to
   socioeconomic goals despite a relatively low percentage of work having
   been subcontracted to small businesses; information on Tennier's (itself a
   small business) subcontracts to other small businesses was not available.
   The protester has failed to show its rating in this area should be higher,
   and, in any event, given the satisfactory rating received by the protester
   in this area, and the minimal role this subfactor had in the overall past
   performance evaluation, we cannot agree with the protester that it has
   been prejudiced by the evaluation in this regard.