In the realm of government procurement, disputes are not uncommon, especially when it comes to contracts for essential supplies like uniforms. A recent decision by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) involving Unitec Distribution Systems and a contract for uniforms for the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) provides valuable insights into the complexities of government contract protests. This article delves into the details of the GAO’s decision in the matter of Unitec Distribution Systems’ protest against the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Hanover Uniform Company for Unitec Uniforms and related items. We will analyze the grounds of the protest, the agency’s evaluation process, and the GAO’s rationale for ultimately denying Unitec’s claims.
Background of the Uniform Contract and Protest
The Architect of the Capitol issued a request for quotations (RFQ) seeking a vendor to supply uniforms, patches, insignia, outerwear, and related items for approximately 1,700 employees across various U.S. Capitol facilities. This procurement, set aside for small businesses, utilized simplified acquisition procedures and aimed to establish a BPA for a base year with four option years. The evaluation process was structured around a best-value tradeoff, prioritizing technical approach, key personnel, corporate experience, and past performance as more important than price when combined.
Alt text: Government building exterior with uniformed personnel, depicting the context of unitec uniforms contract.
Unitec Distribution Systems, a small business, submitted a quotation alongside Hanover Uniform Company, the incumbent contractor. After evaluation, the AOC decided to establish a BPA with Hanover, leading Unitec to file a protest. Unitec contested the agency’s evaluation of both technical and price quotations, alleging unreasonableness and unequal treatment, and argued that the best-value tradeoff decision was flawed.
Key Issues in Unitec’s Protest
Unitec’s protest centered on several key aspects of the agency’s evaluation process. These can be categorized under the evaluation factors outlined in the RFQ: Technical Approach, Key Personnel, Corporate Experience, Price Reasonableness, and the overall Source Selection Decision.
Technical Approach Evaluation
Unitec argued that the agency unreasonably failed to recognize a strength in its technical approach, specifically regarding its proposed uniform management software system. Unitec asserted that this system was uniquely capable of handling the complexities of the AOC’s uniform program and should have been considered a significant advantage. They pointed out that individual evaluators initially noted this as a potential strength.
However, the GAO sided with the agency’s evaluation, which concluded that while Unitec’s system met the requirements, it did not exceed them to a degree that warranted a strength. The agency further clarified that some features of the proposed system were outside the scope of the requirements and could introduce unnecessary training burdens for AOC personnel. The GAO emphasized that Unitec had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its system offered benefits exceeding the solicitation requirements. Disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without further substantiation, is not grounds for sustaining a protest.
Alt text: Digital interface of uniform management software, illustrating the technical aspect of unitec uniforms proposal.
Unitec also claimed unequal evaluation, arguing that Hanover received a strength for its dedicated AOC account coordinator, while Unitec did not receive similar recognition for its proposed account specialist or “direct-to-employee” customer service. The GAO again disagreed, finding that the agency reasonably distinguished between Hanover’s dedicated coordinator and Unitec’s proposed approach. The agency found Hanover’s dedicated coordinator to be a beneficial alternative to a generic call center, exceeding requirements. In contrast, Unitec’s account specialist was perceived as primarily supporting their software system, not necessarily handling day-to-day account issues in the same way as a dedicated coordinator. Furthermore, the agency clarified that the AOC’s uniform procurement process, handled through supply management officers rather than direct employee ordering, rendered Unitec’s “direct-to-employee” service less relevant to the AOC’s needs. Unequal evaluation claims must demonstrate that rating differences did not arise from actual differences in the quotations, which Unitec failed to prove.
Key Personnel Evaluation
Under the Key Personnel factor, Unitec contended that it should have received a strength for proposing two program managers when only one was required. The RFQ specified minimum experience requirements for the program manager role.
The agency’s evaluation revealed that while Unitec proposed two program managers, one did not meet the minimum experience criteria. Effectively, Unitec only proposed one qualified program manager. The GAO found no basis to fault the agency for not assigning a strength for proposing an additional, unqualified individual. The focus of the evaluation was on the quality and relevance of the key personnel’s experience against the solicitation requirements.
Corporate Experience Evaluation
Unitec, in its comments on the agency report, belatedly argued that it should have received a higher rating for corporate experience because it acted as the prime contractor in all its past contract examples. The GAO deemed this argument untimely, as protests must be filed within 10 days of when the basis of protest is known. Unitec was informed of its rating during a post-award discussion but raised this point later.
Alt text: Business professionals in uniforms, representing corporate experience in the context of unitec uniforms.
Even if considered timely, the GAO noted that the RFQ’s evaluation criteria for corporate experience prioritized the similarity in size and scope of past projects. While prime contractor experience could be a positive factor, it wasn’t an automatic determinant for a higher rating. The agency acknowledged Unitec’s relevant experience but found nothing exceptionally outstanding to warrant a rating above “acceptable.”
Price Reasonableness Evaluation
Unitec challenged the agency’s price reasonableness analysis, arguing that it lacked depth and documentation. While acknowledging the contracting officer’s price comparisons, Unitec claimed the analysis was insufficient.
The GAO reiterated that price reasonableness determinations are discretionary and will only be questioned if unreasonable. Agencies can consider various factors, including comparisons to other quotations and government estimates. For simplified acquisitions, minimal documentation is acceptable. Here, the contracting officer compared unit prices and overall prices against each other and the independent government cost estimate (IGCE), finding both quotations reasonable. The GAO found this process, though concise, to be adequately documented and reasonable. Unitec failed to demonstrate that the prices were actually unreasonable or that the agency’s methods were flawed. The GAO also clarified that there is no fixed percentage above the IGCE that automatically deems a price unreasonable, rejecting Unitec’s reliance on a misinterpretation of a previous GAO decision.
Source Selection Decision
Finally, Unitec argued that the agency lacked a rational basis for concluding Hanover’s quotation offered the best value. Unitec contended that the quotations were technically equivalent, and therefore, award should have been based on price. They also disputed the significance of the strengths identified in Hanover’s quotation and the experience of Hanover’s program manager as justification for the price premium.
The GAO emphasized the broad discretion source selection officials have in making best-value tradeoff decisions, guided by rationality and consistency with evaluation criteria. While both vendors received the same adjectival ratings, the agency did not deem them technically equivalent. Evaluation ratings are guides, and agencies can qualitatively assess quotations beyond the ratings. The agency reasonably identified technical strengths in Hanover’s quotation that justified the selection, even at a higher price. The GAO concluded that Unitec’s arguments were essentially disagreements with the agency’s weighting of benefits versus price, which is insufficient to overturn a source selection decision.
Conclusion
The GAO’s decision to deny Unitec’s protest underscores the importance of adhering to solicitation terms, demonstrating clear evaluation rationale, and the broad discretion agencies have in best-value procurements. While Unitec Distribution Systems sought to challenge the award of the unitec uniforms contract to Hanover Uniform Company, the GAO found the agency’s evaluation and source selection process to be reasonable and equitable. This case serves as a reminder for vendors participating in government procurements to thoroughly understand solicitation requirements, clearly articulate the value proposition of their offerings, and ensure timely and well-substantiated protests when necessary. For businesses in the uniform supply industry, understanding these procurement processes and decision-making factors is crucial for successful participation in government contracts.
