TITLE: B-298751.5, Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC, May 1, 2007
BNUMBER: B-298751.5
DATE: May 1, 2007
*********************************************************************
B-298751.5, Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC, May 1, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC

   File: B-298751.5

   Date: May 1, 2007

   Ellis M. Fleisher for the protester.

   Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., Vandeventer Black LLP, for Military Produce
   Group, LLC, an intervenor.

   Elliot J. Clark, Jr., Esq., Defense Commissary Agency, 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

   1. Protest that awardee has an organizational conflict of interest arising
   from performance of contracts for similar work is denied where there is no
   support in the record for allegation that the awardee participated in
   drafting the performance requirements for the current procurement.

   2. Protest of evaluation of proposals and award is denied where record
   shows evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with
   the terms of the solicitation.

   DECISION

   Philadelphia Produce Market Wholesalers, LLC protests the award of a
   contract to Military Produce Group, LLC (MPG) under request for proposals
   (RFP) No. HDEC02-06-R-0005, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA)
   for fresh fruits and vegetables for resale at commissaries in its eastern
   region; Philadelphia protests the Area 3, Group 2 award. The protester
   contends that the agency should have excluded MPG from the competition
   based on an organizational conflict of interest; according to
   Philadelphia, MPG's performance of essentially the same work for the
   agency in another geographical region served as the basis for the current
   RFP's performance requirements. Philadelphia also contends that the past
   performance evaluations were unreasonable and generally challenges the
   reasonableness of the agency's determination that MPG's higher-rated
   technical proposal and lower proposed cost savings offered the best value
   to the agency.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP was issued as a small business set-aside on March 20, 2006 for the
   award of a requirements-type, indefinite-delivery contract (with a 2-year
   base period and two 12-month option periods) for each of several groups of
   commissaries. RFP at 28, 50. Award was to be made to the firm that
   submitted the proposal deemed to offer the best value to the agency
   considering technical capability, past performance, and price. Technical
   capability (including subfactors for experience, quality program,
   production capability/distribution plan, and additional support/promotion
   plan) was to be significantly more important than past performance;
   technical capability and past performance combined were to be
   significantly more important than price. Id. at 28. The evaluation of past
   performance was to assess the probability of successful performance of the
   work required under the solicitation. Id. The evaluation of price was to
   be based on the proposed minimum percentage of patron savings (reflecting
   commissary savings compared to pricing at comparable commercial
   operations). Id. amend. 5, at 7. Proposed prices for produce items were to
   be reviewed for reasonableness, realism, and to assess the offeror's
   understanding of the application of the proposed savings percentage. Id.
   at 15.

   Twelve proposals were received under the RFP for Area 3, Group 2; all but
   one were included in the competitive range for discussions and revised
   proposals were received and evaluated. An initial award to Four Seasons
   Produce, Inc. was terminated by the agency due to a determination by the
   Small Business Administration that the firm was other than a small
   business. Upon reevaluation of the proposals for a new source selection,
   the agency determined that the MPG proposal's superior technical
   capability and higher-rated past performance represented the best value to
   the agency, despite its lower offered cost savings; consequently, an award
   was made to that firm. This protest followed.

   As an initial matter, the protester contends that the agency should have
   excluded MPG from the competition due to an organizational conflict of
   interest arising from the awardee's performance of other contracts at
   other DeCA commissaries. As explained below, there is no support in the
   record for this allegation.

   Contracting officers are required to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate
   potential significant conflicts of interest so as to prevent unfair
   competitive advantage or the existence of conflicting roles that might
   impair a contractor's objectivity. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
   sections 9.504, 9.505; Operational Resource Consultants, Inc., B-299131,
   B-299131.2, Feb. 16, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 38. The situations in which
   organizational conflicts of interest arise can be broadly categorized into
   three groups: biased ground rules, unequal access to non-public
   information, and impaired objectivity. As relevant to the protester's
   claim in this case, a biased ground rules conflict of interest arises
   where a firm, as part of its performance of a government contract, has in
   some sense set the ground rules for the competition for another government
   contract by, for example, writing the statement of work. In these cases,
   the primary concern is that the firm could skew the competition, whether
   intentionally or not, in favor of itself. FAR sections 9.505-1, 9.505-2.

   Here, according to Philadelphia, MPG's performance of essentially the same
   work at other DeCA commissaries served as the basis for the current RFP's
   performance requirements and as a result gave rise to a conflict of
   interest on MPG's part. The agency asserts that the RFP's performance
   requirements were not based on the work previously performed by MPG or its
   affiliates, but rather were developed by DeCA procurement personnel based
   on extensive market research conducted by the agency, as well as
   consideration of the comments received from produce industry
   representatives.

   Our review of the record confirms the agency's position that MPG did not
   assist in the development of the performance requirements here, and we see
   no other support in the record for the protester's allegation of a
   conflict of interest by the firm. While MPG has performed work at other
   DeCA commissaries, the existence of a prior or current contractual
   relationship between a contracting agency and a contractor does not create
   an unfair competitive advantage unless the alleged advantage was created
   by an improper preference or unfair action by the procuring agency. See
   Optimum Tech., Inc., B-266339.2, Apr. 16, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 188 at 7-8.
   In this regard, incumbent contractors with good performance records can
   offer real advantages to the government in terms of lessened performance
   risk; accordingly, proposal strengths flowing from a firm's prior
   experiences are proper considerations in selecting an awardee where, as
   here, past performance is an important evaluation factor. Id. In sum,
   since the record refutes Philadelphia's contention that MPG contributed to
   the development of the current work requirements, and there is no evidence
   of any other improper preference or unfair action by the agency, the
   protester's suggestion that excluding the awardee from the competition is
   warranted is baseless.

   Philadelphia next challenges the reasonableness of the past performance
   evaluations, arguing only that it should have received a higher past
   performance rating for having been in the produce business substantially
   longer than MPG and its teaming partners. In reviewing protests of alleged
   improper evaluations and source selection decisions, it is not our role to
   reevaluate proposals. Rather, we will examine the record to determine
   whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated
   evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations. See
   Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12,
   B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 10-11. A protester's mere
   disagreement with the evaluation is not sufficient to render it or the
   source selection unreasonable. Id.

   In response to the protest, the agency provided a detailed report
   including a comprehensive evaluation record and source selection decision
   analyzing the benefits of the proposals. The record supports the
   reasonableness of the evaluation and award. Specifically, while
   Philadelphia's proposal was rated "very good" for past performance due to
   its teaming members' experience and customer service, the awardee's
   proposal was rated "exceptional," due mainly to its successful performance
   of essentially the same work as is required here at 22 other DeCA
   commissaries, along with several more favorable responses received from
   references for the firm and its teaming partners. On the other hand, while
   Philadelphia demonstrated that it has previously supplied produce to
   several DeCA commissaries, it did so without performing the full range of
   services required here, and thus clearly lacks the same degree of directly
   relevant experience as was evident in the MPG proposal. As noted above, an
   agency reasonably may regard an offeror's directly relevant experience
   performing essentially the same requirements as offering additional value
   to the agency. We find unpersuasive the protester's suggestion that its
   longer period of time in the produce business alone necessitates a higher
   past performance rating than for a newer firm with more directly relevant
   experience and highly favorable past performance references. Based on the
   record, we find reasonable the agency's ranking of the MPG proposal ahead
   of Philadelphia's proposal in terms of past performance.

   With regard to the protester's challenge to the selection decision, our
   review of the full evaluation record confirms the reasonableness of the
   agency's determination that MPG's proposal offered the best value to the
   agency. Specifically, given the MPG proposal's higher rating of
   "exceptional" for technical capability, the RFP's most important
   evaluation factor, compared to the protester's proposal's rating of "very
   good" for the factor (reflecting the agency's finding that Philadelphia's
   proposal lacked detail regarding its proposed quality programs and
   procedures), as well as MPG's higher past performance rating, the record
   provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's
   determination that the technical superiority of the MPG proposal
   outweighed the lower cost savings it proposed.[2]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The protester was not represented by counsel that could be admitted to
   a protective order and, therefore, did not have access to source selection
   sensitive and proprietary information. Accordingly, our discussion is
   necessarily general. Our conclusions, however, are based on our review of
   the entire record.

   [2] Philadelphia, without elaboration or support of any kind, generally
   contends that MPG is not a responsible contractor and that the agency has
   not conducted the procurement in good faith. These unsupported and
   speculative contentions fail to state a valid basis of protest. See Bid
   Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.1(c) (4) and (f) (2006).