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.