TITLE: B-299518; B-299518.3, Matthews Manufacturing, Inc., June 11, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299518; B-299518.3
DATE: June 11, 2007
*****************************************************************
B-299518; B-299518.3, Matthews Manufacturing, Inc., June 11, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Matthews Manufacturing, Inc.

   File: B-299518; B-299518.3

   Date: June 11, 2007

   Matt Alexander for the protester.

   Charles Morris, for Universal Marine Services, Inc., an intervenor.

   J. Stephen Brophy, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.

   Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Where solicitation for buoys gave predominant weight to technical factors
   as compared to price, agency's decision to award, based on the offeror's
   higher-priced proposal and demonstrated experience and capability in
   producing buoys identical to those being procured, was reasonable and in
   accord with the solicitation.

   DECISION

   Matthews Manufacturing, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Universal
   Marine Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   HSCG23-06-R-ECB018, by the United States Coast Guard, Department of
   Homeland Security, for the supply of steel ocean buoys.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on September 8, 2006, sought proposals for steel ocean
   buoys to be used as navigational aids to be fabricated in accordance with
   government provided specifications and drawings. The RFP contemplated the
   award of a fixed-price, with economic price adjustments, requirements
   contract, for a base year with four 1-year options.

   The RFP provided for award on a "best-value" basis, considering the
   following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance:
   manufacturing approach capability, relevant experience, quality control
   plan, price, and relevant past performance. RFP at 129.

   The manufacturing approach capability factor included the following
   equally weighted subfactors: manufacturing process, facilities and
   equipment, and manufacturing plan. Under the manufacturing process
   subfactor, the "[d]emonstrated manufacturing capability in terms of
   offeror's existing manufacturing processes and systems from start to
   completion of the finished buoy, or its detailed plan to obtain/develop
   the requisite manufacturing capability," would be evaluated. Under the
   facilities and equipment subfactor, the "[d]emonstrated existing
   capability in offeror's existing manufacturing facility including all sub
   assembly operations used to finish the buoy, or its detailed plan to
   obtain/develop the requisite manufacturing facilities [and the]
   [d]emonstrated existing capability of the offeror in all machine types for
   each operation performed, or its detailed plan to obtain/develop requisite
   capability in all machine types," would be evaluated. The manufacturing
   plan was to "demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the requirements
   and address each aspect of buoy construction in terms of existing
   manufacturing systems (processes), facilities and equipment, or its
   detailed plan to obtain/develop the requisite manufacturing systems
   (processes, facilities and equipment)." Id.

   The relevant experience factor was to evaluate "relevant experience in
   manufacturing items from standard specification documents such as aids to
   navigation or items of similar design or construction to those requested."
   RFP at 130.

   The quality control plan factor included five equally weighted subfactors:
   receiving and components, cutting room operations, assembly area
   operations, final inspections, and packaging, shipping and handling
   operations. Under the packaging, shipping and handling operations
   subfactor, the quality control plan was to "demonstrate [that] adequate
   shipping materials will be used and proper visual inspection of packages
   before shipment will be conducted to ensure proper structural integrity,
   sealing and labeling is accomplished without fail." Id.

   The relevant past performance factor included five equally weighted
   subfactors: product quality, timeliness, business practices, cost control,
   and customer satisfaction. Id.

   Four proposals, including Matthews's and Universal's, were received in
   response to the RFP by the October 25 closing date. These offerors'
   proposals were evaluated as follows:

   +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |         |Manufacturing|Relevant    |Quality     |Price      |Relevant    |
   |         |Approach     |Experience  |Control Plan|           |Past        |
   |         |Capability   |            |            |           |Performance |
   |---------+-------------+------------+------------+-----------+------------|
   |Universal|Superior     |Superior    |Satisfactory|$22,917,959|Satisfactory|
   |---------+-------------+------------+------------+-----------+------------|
   |Matthews |Satisfactory |Satisfactory|Satisfactory|$20,993,035|Satisfactory|
   +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report, Tab 14, Price Memorandum, at 3.

   The evaluators found Matthews's proposal contained no weaknesses,
   significant weaknesses or deficiencies, except under one subfactor. Under
   the packaging, shipping, and handling operations subfactor of the quality
   control factor, where Matthews's proposal was rated marginal, it was found
   that Matthews had failed to address specifically how the buoys will be
   packaged and handled for shipment. Id. at 4.

   Similarly, the evaluators found that Universal's proposal had no
   weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies. However, the
   evaluators attached significant benefit to Universal's proposal because
   "[Universal] has all of the skill sets and equipment required to fabricate
   the buoys", "[Universal has] built the identical steel ocean buoys for 10
   years (1993 to 2003)," and currently is "working on a Coast Guard contract
   for ocean buoys" and is "building ocean buoys for the Corps of Engineers."
   Id. The evaluators found that a superior rating was warranted under the
   manufacturing approach factor because Universal's "extensive expertise
   with this identical product means that that there will be no lead time or
   learning curve" as would be the case with a company that never built the
   product. Id. A superior rating was found warranted under the relevant
   experience subfactor because Universal had built the buoys for the Coast
   Guard over 10 years and had done so for other government agencies and
   commercial vendors for 13 years.

   Based on the evaluation results, the source selection official determined
   Universal's proposal to be the best value. In making the decision, the
   official found that, although Universal's price, which the agency found
   was fair and reasonable, was 10 percent higher than Matthews's price,
   Matthew's low price did not outweigh the superior technical capabilities
   and ratings associated with Universal's proposal. Id. at 5. The Coast
   Guard awarded the contract to Universal on February 12. This protest
   followed.

   The crux of Matthews's protest is that the Coast Guard did not have a
   reasonable basis to make award to Universal at a higher price. To this
   effect, Matthews challenges the validity of the superior ratings
   Universal's proposal received under the manufacturing approach and
   relevant experience factors, arguing that this evaluated superiority was
   based on unstated evaluation criteria relating to Universal having
   previously provided the identical item.

   In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations and awards,
   it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines
   the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable, and
   in accord with the RFP's terms and applicable procurement statutes and
   regulations. Tessada & Assocs., Inc., B-293942, July 15, 2004, 2004 CPD
   para. 170 at 3.

   As noted above, the agency's evaluators found that there were significant
   benefits to the government based on Universal's considerable experience
   with the identical buoy, which from the government's standpoint meant
   deliveries of the buoys, which the agency had a critical need for, could
   begin sooner. Consistent with the RFP evaluation scheme, which for example
   called for evaluation of existing manufacturing capabilities, Universal's
   proposal received superior ratings under these factors based on its
   demonstrated experience and manufacturing capability in successfully
   producing the identical item. We find that the agency did not apply an
   unstated evaluation criteria, as alleged by the protester.[1]

   Matthews nevertheless argues that Universal's production capacity is too
   low to satisfy the agency's requirements. This contention is based upon
   its interpretation of certain documentation it obtained regarding
   Universal's production under a current Coast Guard contract that was not
   available to the evaluators during the evaluation.[2] Based on our review
   of Universal's proposal, there was sufficient information for the agency
   to reasonably conclude that Universal had demonstrated the manufacturing
   capability to produce the capacity of buoys required by the contract.

   In sum the record supports the superior rating of Universal's proposal
   under the manufacturing approach capability and relevant experience
   factors.

   Matthews does not claim that it had similar experience in producing the
   identical item, or that there were other grounds which warranted similar
   superior ratings be given its proposal under these factors. While Matthews
   asserts that its ISO (International Organization Standardization) 9001
   certifications should have precluded its marginal rating under the
   packaging, shipping and handling operations subfactor of the quality
   control factor, this certification has nothing to do with the marginal
   rating of Matthews's proposal under this subfactor based on its failure to
   adequately address quality control requirements. In fact, our review
   confirms the reasonableness of the agency's determination that Matthews
   did not adequately address packaging and shipping in its proposal.

   Although Matthews questions the additional price premium associated with
   the award to Universal, given its own technical competence to produce
   these buoys, where, as here, the RFP emphasizes the significantly greater
   importance of technical factors over price, an agency has considerable
   discretion, as it did here, to award to an offeror with a higher technical
   rating and higher price. See Tessada & Assocs., Inc., supra, at 8. The
   record does not provide a basis to question the reasonableness of the
   agency's documented award decision.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] While Matthews argues in this regard that on other procurements
   containing the same criteria, price was the controlling factor for award,
   an agency's actions under one procurement do not affect the propriety of
   its actions under a different procurement. See Southern CAD/CAM, B-254201,
   Nov. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 278 at 4.

   [2] Universal has responded with specific evidence that it has the
   requisite capability and that Matthews's contentions are based upon a
   misapprehension of its capabilities.