TITLE: B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3, SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC, November 29, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3
DATE: November 29, 2006
***********************************************************************************
B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3, SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC, November 29, 2006

   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: SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC

   File: B-298790; B-298790.2; B-298790.3

   Date: November 29, 2006

   William A. Shook, Esq., Kelley P. Doran, Esq., Matthew Koehl, Esq., and
   Victor G. Vogel, Esq., Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP, for the
   protester.

   Harold G. Bailey, Jr., Esq., Richard D. Gluck, Esq., Aaron W. Knights,
   Esq., and Robert A. Boraks, Esq., Garvey Schubert Barer, for Spokane
   Produce, Inc., an intervenor.

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

   Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging proposal evaluation and source selection decision is
   denied where record shows evaluation and award decision were reasonable
   and consistent with solicitation's evaluation terms and applicable
   procurement regulations.

   DECISION

   SCS Refrigerated Services, LLC protests the award of a contract to Spokane
   Produce, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDEC02-06-R-0007,
   issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for providing fresh fruits
   and vegetables to commissaries located in DeCA's west region (Area 4). SCS
   argues that DeCA improperly evaluated its proposal and that the best value
   award decision was unreasonable.

   We deny the protest.

   DeCA operates commissary stores, which provide for the sale of groceries
   and household supplies to members of the military and authorized patrons.
   On April 21, 2006, DeCA issued the subject solicitation as a small
   business set-aside for the procurement of fresh fruits and vegetables for
   14 commissaries located in DeCA's west region (Area 4). Area 4 was divided
   into Groups 1 and 2. Group 1 consisted of nine commissaries located on
   military installations in Washington, Montana, and Idaho, and Group 2
   consisted of five commissaries located on installations in Alaska.[1] The
   RFP provided for the award of individual contracts for Groups 1 and 2,
   each for a base term of 2 years, with two 12-month option periods. Only
   the Group 1 award is at issue in this protest.

   Pursuant to the RFP, award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal
   represented the best value to the government based upon the evaluation
   factors of technical capability, past performance, and price. The
   solicitation specified that technical capability was significantly more
   important than past performance, and when combined, technical capability
   and past performance were significantly more important than price. RFP
   amend. 4, at 14.

   Under the technical capability factor, the solicitation included the
   following four subfactors: (1) experience, (2) quality program, (3)
   production capability/distribution plan, and (4) additional
   support/promotion plan, which was "slightly less important" than the other
   three equally weighted subfactors. The past performance factor was
   comprised of the following three subfactors: (1) product delivery, (2)
   quality history/customer satisfaction, and (3) business relations, which
   was "slightly less important" than the other two equally weighted
   subfactors. Under the terms of the RFP, technical capability was to be
   evaluated based on narratives and information submitted by the offerors in
   their technical proposals and past performance was to be evaluated based
   on responses to past performance surveys provided by the offerors'
   references and any other past performance information available to the
   contracting officer. RFP amend. 4, at 14-15.

   Due to the inherent variability of prices for fresh fruits and vegetables,
   the RFP did not seek fixed prices for produce; rather, offerors were
   required to propose what the solicitation termed the offeror's "percentage
   of patron savings," which was defined as follows:

     the average amount the contractor will save the commissary patron on all
     core items over the selling price of the same or similar items from
     comparable commercial operations within the local commuting area and/or
     geographical area within a 20-mile radius of the commissary location
     (excluding membership clubs and convenience type stores), called Market
     Basket Pricing. . . . The contractor will be required to maintain the
     minimum percentage of patron savings throughout the life of the
     contract.

   RFP amend. 4, at 21.[2]

   In response to the RFP, DeCA received timely proposals from six offerors,
   including SCS and Spokane, for the Group 1 requirement. After the closing
   date for receipt of proposals, the offerors, as required by DeCA, made
   oral presentations to the technical evaluation board (TEB) established by
   DeCA for the purpose of evaluating offerors under the technical and past
   performance factors. After the completion of oral presentations and the
   TEB's initial evaluations, DeCA held discussions with all six offerors. In
   its discussions with SCS, DeCA raised several issues regarding its
   evaluation of SCS's proposal under the technical and past performance
   factors.

   After receipt of final proposal revisions, DeCA's final evaluation of
   proposals reflected the following ratings:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Final Evaluation Results Group |Maximum|Spokane | A | B | C |  SCS  | D |
   |1                              |Points |        |   |   |   |       |   |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Technical Capability           |       |        |   |   |   |       |   |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Experience                     |  30   |28 (EX) |27 |27 |25 |26 (VG)|27 |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Quality Program                |  30   |28 (EX) |27 |27 |27 |27 (EX)|27 |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Production                     |  30   |28 (EX) |25 |24 |23 |23 (VG)|22 |
   |Capability/Distribution Plan   |       |        |   |   |   |       |   |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Additional Support/Promotion   |  20   |18 (EX) |18 |18 |17 |18 (EX)|13 |
   |Plan                           |       |        |   |   |   |       |   |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Total Score:                   |  110  |102 (EX)|97 |96 |92 |94 (VG)|89 |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Past Performance               |       |        |   |   |   |       |   |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Product Delivery               |  30   |28 (EX) |28 |28 |28 |28 (EX)|28 |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Quality History/Customer       |  30   |27 (EX) |27 |27 |26 |25 (VG)|20 |
   |Satisfaction                   |       |        |   |   |   |       |   |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Business Relations             |  20   |18 (EX) |18 |19 |18 |15 (VG)|13 |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Total Score:                   |  80   |73 (EX) |73 |74 |72 |68 (VG)|61 |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Total Technical and Past       |  190  |  175   |170|170|164|  162  |150|
   |Performance Score:             |       |        |   |   |   |       |   |
   |-------------------------------+-------+--------+---+---+---+-------+---|
   |Proposed Minimum % of Patron   |       |  40%   |40%|40%|41%|  51%  |42%|
   |Savings:                       |       |        |   |   |   |       |   |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Decision Summary Document, at 35.[3]

   In making its best value decision, DeCA compared Spokane's proposal (the
   highest technically rated proposal) with each proposal submitted for the
   Group 1 requirement, including SCS's proposal. Based on a detailed
   comparison of Spokane's and SCS's proposals under each factor and
   subfactor independent of the point scores and adjectival ratings assigned,
   the contracting officer concluded that notwithstanding Spokane's lower
   percentage of patron savings of 40 percent, as compared to SCS's higher
   savings percentage of 51 percent, Spokane's higher technically rated
   proposal represented the best value to the government. After receiving
   notice of award and a debriefing, SCS filed the subject protest with our
   office.

   In its protest, SCS challenges DeCA's evaluation of its proposal, DeCA's
   evaluation of the proposal submitted by Spokane, as well as DeCA's best
   value decision. Specifically, SCS argues that it should have received
   higher ratings under several of the technical capability subfactors, as
   well as under the past performance subfactor, business relations.
   According to SCS, weaknesses attributed to its proposal under these
   subfactors were inconsistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the
   solicitation and unreasonable given the information provided in its
   proposal. In the alternative, assuming that its proposal was properly
   evaluated, SCS maintains that Spokane's proposal should not have been
   rated higher than SCS. As a final matter, SCS argues that DeCA failed to
   consider price as part of its tradeoff award decision as required by the
   RFP and that the award decision lacked a reasonable basis.[4]

   In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate offerors'
   proposals; instead, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that
   it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation
   criteria and procurement statutes and regulations. Urban-Meridian Joint
   Venture, B-287168, B-287168.2, May 7, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 91 at 2. A
   protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation is not
   sufficient to render the evaluation reasonable. Ben-Mar Enters., Inc.,
   B-295781, Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 68 at 7.

   Here, the record reflects that DeCA conducted a detailed evaluation of the
   proposals submitted by SCS and Spokane, and then, as part of the best
   value decision process, DeCA specifically compared the substantive aspects
   of SCS's proposal with Spokane's proposal and concluded that Spokane was
   technically superior. In challenging DeCA's evaluation under the
   experience subfactor (under which it received 26 of 30 available points),
   SCS suggests that it was entitled to the maximum point score and
   challenges two remarks contained in DeCA's source selection decision.
   Specifically, SCS challenges a comment stating that SCS's corporate
   structures and level of authority were "less defined" as compared to those
   of Spokane, and the comment that, as a consolidator with direct access to
   farms and orchards, SCS held an "(undefined) `edge' in providing DeCA with
   the best possible quality produce." AR, Tab 12, Decision Summary Document,
   at 44. According to SCS, these comments did not reflect valid weaknesses
   of its proposal.

   Initially, we note that the latter comment does not appear to be an
   adverse comment concerning SCS. In any event, the evaluation record does
   not indicate any weaknesses attributed to SCS's proposal under the
   experience subfactor; thus there is nothing to suggest that SCS was
   downgraded as a consequence of the above remarks it challenges. Rather,
   these comments reflect a comparative assessment of SCS's proposal with the
   proposal submitted by Spokane and the one comment on corporate structure
   articulates a basis to support the 2-point numerical advantage held by
   Spokane under this subfactor. To the extent SCS contends that
   considerations of corporate structures and levels of authority were not
   valid bases for comparison because they were outside the scope of the
   experience subfactor, this argument is misplaced given that, under the
   experience subfactor, the RFP specifically required offerors to
   "[d]escribe [their] corporate structure, to include departments such as
   buying, quality assurance, food safety, customer service, and
   transportation." RFP amend. 4, at 11. Most importantly, SCS ignores DeCA's
   general conclusion under this subfactor that Spokane, as compared to SCS,
   had "slightly stronger company profiles with related experience of
   individuals who will be involved in all aspects of performance under the
   resultant contract." AR, Tab 12, Decision Summary Document, at 44. This
   unchallenged conclusion was consistent with Spokane's slightly higher
   rating under this subfactor.

   SCS also challenges specific weaknesses attributed to its proposal under
   the technical capability subfactor, production capability/distribution
   plan, and concerns regarding its past performance. During its discussions
   with SCS regarding production capability/distribution plan, DeCA asked SCS
   to explain how it intended to handle emergency, out-of-cycle, or
   replacement orders at stores located in the Puget Sound area since, in
   DeCA's opinion, the location of SCS's distribution center would make it
   difficult for SCS to respond to such orders in a timely manner. DeCA also
   asked SCS to identify its alternate source or sources of supply in the
   event one or more of its transport trucks is unable to complete deliveries
   to a commissary store location due to inclement weather, and to explain
   its plans for providing replacement products to the Malmstrom and Mountain
   Home stores from a local source in the event a product is rejected upon
   delivery at these locations.[5] AR, Tab 8, SCS Discussion Questions, at 2.

   Under the past performance factor, DeCA informed SCS during discussions of
   a negative comment regarding its past performance, which stated that SCS
   "sometimes takes too long in providing answers to problems or issues." Id.
   at 3. Because of this comment, DeCA asked SCS to explain how it would be
   able to respond timely to problems or issues raised by commissary
   personnel.

   While SCS maintains that it addressed each of the above concerns in its
   response to DeCA's discussion questions, the record reflects that DeCA's
   concerns regarding SCS's distribution plans and its past performance
   remained--SCS's challenges reflect nothing more than its disagreement with
   DeCA's evaluation. Specifically, regarding DeCA's request for further
   information regarding SCS's emergency, out-of-cycle, or replacement
   products for the Puget Sound area stores, SCS responded, in part, by
   stating that "[d]epending on the nature of the emergency, response time
   could be less than 4 hours or as much as next delivery." AR, Tab 8, SCS's
   Response to Discussions at 5. As a consequence of this statement, DeCA was
   concerned that emergency orders to the Puget Sound stores would not be
   timely. The TEB noted that emergency orders are needed within an hour or
   two, or at the very latest the next day, and it viewed SCS as indicating
   an emergency response time potentially extending until the next delivery
   date, which might not be until the following week. AR, Tab 11, Technical
   Evaluation of SCS, at 5. According to the TEB, this would result in
   customers not being able to purchase produce and lost sales. Id. As a
   consequence, the TEB did not adjust SCS's score upward based on its
   response to this issue.

   SCS also maintains that its score under the production
   capability/distribution plan subfactor should have been higher since, as
   requested by DeCA, it identified its alternate sources of supply in the
   event one or more of its transport trucks is unable to complete deliveries
   to a commissary store location due to inclement weather, and explained its
   plans for providing replacement products to the Malmstrom and Mountain
   Home stores from a local source in the event a product is rejected upon
   delivery at these locations. While the record reflects that SCS did in
   fact address these issues, DeCA concluded that SCS's responses did not
   fully allay its concerns. Specifically, while SCS had named a primary
   alternate source for deliveries, Duck Delivery of Sumner, Washington, DeCA
   faulted SCS for failing to provide a formal contract or written agreement
   with this source. In addition, DeCA had concerns about SCS's plans to use
   Peirone Produce for replacement products at the Malmstrom and Mountain
   Home stores, as opposed to a local source, since, according to DeCA,
   Peirone Produce was an 8-10 hour drive from these stores.[6] Moreover,
   DeCA found SCS's representations that it would work to maintain
   relationships with the commissaries' current emergency suppliers lacked
   specific information to guarantee a future relationship with these
   suppliers. While SCS maintains that DeCA's concerns were unreasonable, its
   arguments amount to mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation and do
   not provide a basis for sustaining its protest.

   Moreover, SCS contends that the agency improperly considered the
   "location" of its suppliers and its failure to provide evidence of formal
   contracts or agreements with its contingency suppliers since these were
   not stated bases of evaluation. While procuring agencies are required to
   identify significant evaluation factors and subfactors in a solicitation,
   they are not required to identify every aspect of each factor that might
   be taken into account; rather, agencies reasonably may take into account
   considerations, even if unstated, that are reasonably related to or
   encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria. See Ridoc Enter., Inc.,
   B-292962.4, July 6, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 169 at 4; Network Eng'g, Inc.,
   B-292996, Jan. 7, 2004,2004 CPD para. 23 at 3.

   These aspects of the evaluation were reasonable. Under the production
   capability/distribution plan subfactor, the solicitation required offerors
   to provide detailed descriptions of their contingency plans for delays,
   how they would handle out-of-cycle and emergency orders, how they would
   handle produce shortages, and to identify back-up sources. RFP amend. 4 at
   12-13. Given the scope of the requested information, we think the location
   of an offeror's back-up suppliers and the certainty of its relationships
   with its back-up suppliers were reasonably related to an offeror's ability
   to respond to distribution challenges so as to timely and adequately meet
   the produce needs of the various Area 4, Group 1 commissaries. As a
   consequence, DeCA's concerns did not reflect the application of unstated
   evaluation factors.

   SCS maintains that DeCA unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the past
   performance subfactor, business relations, as well. According to SCS, it
   addressed DeCA's concerns resulting from a past performance reference
   commenting that SCS "sometimes takes too long in providing answers to
   problems or issues," by proposing a full-time military manager dedicated
   exclusively to the commissaries' needs. AR, Tab 8, SCS Discussion
   Questions, at 3. In addition, SCS contends that since this concern was
   considered by the agency to be only a "slight problem," a point score of
   15 out of 20 points was not warranted. AR, Tab 11, Technical Evaluation of
   SCS, at 8.

   The record shows that the agency found SCS's response unpersuasive since
   it was merely a restatement of information in its proposal and did not
   provide DeCA with any further assurances that its responses to concerns of
   the commissaries would be timely. As explained by the contracting officer,
   the TEB found that SCS's military manager was identified as having
   numerous responsibilities, and given these varied responsibilities, DeCA
   questioned whether the military manager would be capable of promptly
   addressing concerns at all of the Area 4, Group 1 commissaries. AR,
   Contracting Officer's Statement, at 16. Regarding its point score under
   this subfactor, SCS's argument underscores its mistaken belief that absent
   a weakness, it was entitled to a rating of exceptional. DeCA's evaluation,
   however, contemplated assessments of offerors' strengths and weaknesses;
   thus, a proposal without any weaknesses was not automatically entitled to
   a rating of exceptional. In any event, the record reflects that SCS's
   score corresponded to an adjectival rating of "very good," which appears
   reasonable given SCS past performance record which reflected ratings of
   satisfactory through excellent, as well DeCA's reasonable concern
   regarding SCS's ability to timely respond to the concerns of the
   commissaries as discussed above. Ultimately, SCS's protest of its past
   performance evaluation reflects nothing more than its disagreement with
   DeCA's judgments regarding this aspect of its proposal.

   SCS also challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the technical
   capability subfactor, quality program. Specifically, DeCA had asked SCS
   during discussions to provide additional information explaining SCS's
   fresh-cut process and defining the number of days SCS will guarantee the
   shelf life of fresh-cut fruit and vegetables. AR, Tab 8, SCS Discussions
   Letter at 2. SCS maintains that it addressed this area of concern in its
   proposal and that DeCA failed to consider its response. As a consequence,
   SCS maintains that it unreasonably received a score which was 1 point
   below the score received by Spokane under this subfactor. While the
   contemporaneous record does not clearly reflect the extent to which DeCA
   considered SCS's response in this regard, it does show that SCS received
   the highest rating of "exceptional" under this subfactor, which was
   specifically noted in the source selection decision document. Moreover,
   DeCA found that SCS also had "a strong quality assurance program," and
   there was no mention of the above concern in the source selection decision
   document. AR, Tab 12, Decision Summary Document, at 45. Thus, there is no
   indication in the source selection record that the above area of concern
   had any material bearing on the award decision.

   In challenging DeCA's evaluation of Spokane's proposal, SCS argues that
   the evaluation record reflects disparate treatment under the production
   capability/distribution plan subfactor of the technical capability
   factor.[7] According to SCS, a side-by-side comparison of proposals
   demonstrates that Spokane's proposal was "vague and anemic" as compared to
   SCS's proposal under this subfactor, and that Spokane's superior rating
   was unreasonable. SCS's Comments at 46. SCS argues that disparate
   treatment is also reflected by the fact that Spokane received a high
   rating notwithstanding that Spokane's response to its discussion questions
   suffered from the same weakness attributed to SCS's responses. The record
   does not support SCS's arguments.

   In evaluating Spokane's proposal under the production
   capability/distribution plan subfactor, DeCA determined that Spokane's
   proposal contained several strengths with regard to its ability to address
   emergency, out-of-cycle, or replacement products with little or no risk,
   including the fact that Spokane's teaming arrangement provides for a
   teaming partner to be located within hours of a commissary and to thereby
   rapidly respond to the needs of the commissaries. AR, Tab 11, Technical
   Evaluation of Spokane, at 4. This strength was specifically noted in the
   source selection tradeoff decision comparing the proposals of SCS and
   Spokane. AR, Tab 12, Decision Summary Document, at 45. By comparison, DeCA
   had concerns about SCS's ability to timely address emergency,
   out-of-cycle, or replacement orders at commissaries in the Puget Sound
   area given the location of SCS's distribution center and, as discussed
   above, DeCA found SCS's response to this issue troubling to the extent
   that SCS stated that emergency needs may be delayed until the next
   delivery. Similarly, DeCA had raised concerns about SCS's ability to
   provide replacement products to the Malmstrom and Mountain Home
   commissaries in a timely manner, concerns which were absent from DeCA's
   evaluation of Spokane's proposal. In this regard, DeCA specifically noted
   that Spokane had been the primary supplier of fresh produce to the
   Malmstrom and Mountain Home commissaries since 2001 and that its proposal
   reflected an understanding of the distribution challenges associated with
   those stores.

   During discussions, DeCA did ask Spokane for further information regarding
   its plans for addressing delays caused by mechanical breakdowns, inclement
   weather, or other transportation anomalies, as well as its contingency
   plans for unforeseen work stoppages, and the record reflects that Spokane
   provided a detailed response. In fact, DeCA was impressed by Spokane and
   its team members' utilization of their own mechanics to maintain their
   fleet of trucks, as well its "large network of repair facilities in the
   delivery areas," thereby reducing the risk that mechanical breakdowns
   would be a cause of delay for deliveries, in DeCA's opinion. AR, Tab 12,
   Decision Summary Document, at 45. As noted above, DeCA's discussions with
   SCS pertained to wholly different concerns regarding its proposal under
   this subfactor. Given that DeCA's discussions were tailored to the
   specific information contained in Spokane's and SCS's proposals and
   therefore were substantively different, SCS's comparisons of its
   discussion responses with Spokane's is misplaced and does not support its
   allegations of disparate treatment.

   As a final matter, SCS argues that the agency's source selection decision
   was flawed because it was based on a mechanical application of the numeric
   scores and thus failed to provide a meaningful consideration of SCS's
   significantly lower price.

   In a best value procurement, such as this, a procuring agency properly may
   select for award a higher-rated technical proposal with a higher price,
   where the agency determines that the price premium is justified
   considering the technical superiority of the selected proposal. BTC
   Contract Servs., Inc., B-295877, May 11, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 96 at 6.
   Contrary to SCS's assertions, DeCA's source selection decision did not
   reflect a meaningless mechanical application of point scores without
   consideration of SCS's price advantage. Rather, the record of the source
   selection decision demonstrates a detailed discussion of the relative
   advantages of Spokane's proposal as compared to SCS's proposal under the
   technical capability and past performance factors and each of their
   corresponding subfactors, and an express recognition of SCS's advantage
   with regard to the minimum guaranteed percentages of patron savings--an
   advantage that DeCA described as "significant." AR, Tab 12 Decision
   Summary Document, at 46. Notwithstanding SCS's high percentage of patron
   savings, DeCA concluded that Spokane's proposal represented the best
   value. In explaining its selection decision, DeCA discussed how Spokane's
   technical advantages corresponded to a superior product with less risk.
   This tradeoff in favor of Spokane's evaluated technical superiority under
   the technical capability and past performance factors was reasonable and
   consistent with the express terms of the RFP, which provided that these
   factors, when combined, were "significantly more important" than price.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] As it relates to the protest, Group 1 included commissaries at the
   following locations: (1) Bangor Naval Submarine Base, Washington; (2)
   Bremerton Naval Station, Washington; (3) Fairchild Air Force Base,
   Washington; (4) Fort Lewis, Washington; (5) Malmstrom Air Force Base,
   Montana; (6) McChord Air Force Base, Washington; (7) Mountain Home Air
   Force Base, Idaho; (8) Smokey Point, Washington; and (9) Whidbey Island,
   Washington.

   [2] Offerors were also required to submit unit prices for 37 in-season
   "high volume core items", which were to reflect the offeror's proposed
   patron savings percentage. RFP at 18. The unit prices were to be evaluated
   for reasonableness and were intended to provide DeCA with a basis for
   assessing price realism. RFP amend. 4, at 8.

   [3] As reflected by the record, our office modified the above table from
   the one included in the agency report to indicate the maximum point values
   for each factor and subfactor, as well as the adjectival ratings
   associated with the numerical scores earned by Spokane and SCS. In this
   regard, the notations (EX) and (VG) refer to ratings of "exceptional" and
   "very good," respectively.

   [4] SCS expressly withdrew its allegation that award to Spokane was
   improper due to an impermissible conflict of interest.

   [5] While SCS repeatedly maintains that its discussions were not
   meaningful because it was not apprised of weaknesses identified in its
   proposal, the record reflects that SCS was in fact informed of the various
   weaknesses identified by DeCA as part of its technical evaluation. To the
   extent SCS complains that the agency should have held a second round of
   discussions, thereby allowing SCS to address DeCA's concerns regarding
   SCS's responses to DeCA's discussion questions, DeCA was not required to
   do so. See Nomura Enter. Inc., B-251889.2, May 6, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 490
   at 5.

   [6] While SCS challenges DeCA's characterization of the drive time between
   Peirone Produce and Malmstrom and Mountain Home as being 8-10 hours,
   arguing that the drive time is closer to 6-7 hours, the agency notes that
   its projected time was only an estimate and provided a detailed discussion
   of the topography of the travel route to explain why it believes the drive
   time would be greater than that projected by SCS. There is nothing in the
   record to suggest that the agency's evaluation in this regard was
   unreasonable.

   [7] SCS also argued that DeCA improperly considered attachments, included
   as appendices to Spokane's proposal, since they exceeded the RFP's
   100-page limit. The RFP, under the heading "General Instructions",
   however, merely stated that "[e]ach volume of the proposal should not
   exceed 100 pages including all exhibits provided by the offeror." RFP at
   13 (emphasis added). Given the context of the RFP's use of the term
   "should" as opposed to terms such as "shall" or "must", it appears that
   the agency intended the page limit to be precatory as opposed to
   mandatory. For example, two sentences after the term "should" is used as
   quoted above, the RFP uses the term "must", thereby indicating that the
   agency intended a distinction between these terms. Thus it was not
   improper for DeCA to consider the additional information contained in
   Spokane's proposal. See Steelcase Inc., B-260781, July 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD
   para. 41 at 4.