Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

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: Master Lock Company, LLC 

File: B-309982.3 

Date: December 10, 2008 

William M. Weisberg, Esq., Joyce L. Tong, Esq., Angela L. Nadler, Esq., Bryan Cave 

LLP, for the protester. 

Gail L. Booth, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. 

Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest arguing that an agency’s rationale for making a split award was improperly 

based on an undisclosed criterion of demand for the solicited items--or, alternatively, 

giving disproportionate weight to a single criterion--is denied where the solicitation 

stated that past performance in delivering similar quantities of items would be 

considered, and the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 

DECISION 

Master Lock Company, LLC, of Oak Creek, Wisconsin, protests the award of a 

contract to Evergreen Specialty Services under request for proposals (RFP) SPM5L5-

07-R-0056, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for low security padlocks. 

Master Lock contends that the agency improperly considered the anticipated 

demand for each lock type when conducting a price/technical tradeoff for that type. 

The protester also argues, in the alternative, that if demand was a proper evaluation

criterion, the agency’s selection decision elevated its importance in a manner 

inconsistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation scheme. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND 

This protest involves the second challenge to DLA’s rationale for splitting between 

Master Lock and Evergreen the awards to provide 35 separate types of locks, and 

arises after the agency’s reevaluation of proposals in response to our decision 

sustaining the earlier protest. Although the protester initially received an award for 
22 of the lock types solicited, it argues for the second time that it should have 

received award for all of the remaining 13 lock types as well. For the reasons set 

forth below, we conclude the agency award decisions had a reasonable basis. 

The RFP was initially issued on February 5, 2007, and sought proposals to provide 

35 types of low-security padlocks. The RFP anticipated the award of one or more 

fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contracts, subject to an economic price adjustment

clause, with a 1-year base performance period and four 1-year option periods. The 

solicitation identified the estimated volumes for each lock type. RFP at 37-47. 

The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following nonprice factors, in descending order of importance: past performance, socio-economic 

considerations, and Javits-Wagner-O’Day (JWOD) Act considerations. RFP at 64-65. 

The past performance evaluation factor had three equally-weighted subfactors: 

delivery, business relations/customer satisfaction, and quality. Id. The price and 

non-price factors were of equal weight. Id. at 66. 

The agency convened a technical evaluation team (TET) to evaluate the offerors’ 

proposals. As relevant here, the TET found that Evergreen’s initial proposal did not

address the socio-economic or JWOD considerations evaluation factors, and rated 

the proposal as “poor” under these factors, the lowest rating under the agency’s

source selection plan (SSP).1

 Following discussions, the contracting officer (CO)

and source selection authority (SSA) each concluded that Evergreen’s proposal 

should be rated “neutral” under the socio-economic and JWOD evaluation factors

because, as a small business, Evergreen had fewer opportunities to enter into 

subcontracts with other small businesses or JWOD entities. The ratings for the 

offerors were as follows: 

 1

 For the past performance evaluation, the agency used an evaluation scheme of 

outstanding, good, no record, fair and poor. AR, Tab 8, SSP at 4. For the socioeconomic and JWOD considerations evaluations, the agency used an evaluation 

scheme of outstanding, good, fair and poor. Id. at 6-7. 

Page 2 B-309982.3
MASTER LOCK EVERGREEN 

PAST PERFORMANCE OUTSTANDING GOOD 

Delivery Good Good

Business relations/

customer satisfaction Outstanding Outstanding 

Quality Outstanding Good

SOCIO-ECONOMIC 

CONSIDERATIONS GOOD NEUTRAL

JWOD CONSIDERATIONS GOOD NEUTRAL 

OVERALL RATING OUTSTANDING GOOD 

AR, Initial Source Selection Authority Decision (SSAD), at 2. 

In the tradeoff decision, the SSA noted that Master Lock and Evergreen proposed 

prices that ranged in difference from 1% to 17%, with “the majority of items averaging 

an 8% or less (+/-) difference.” Id. Based on Master Lock’s higher rating for past

performance, the SSA selected Master Lock for award of the 22 lock types where 

Master Lock’s price was either lower than Evergreen’s, or no more than 

8% higher. Id. The SSA selected Evergreen for the award of the remaining 13 lock

types, stating that Evergreen “is the lowest priced offer, and their past performance 

is rated as overall good.” Id. at 1. 

DLA advised each offeror of the award decisions, and provided Master Lock a 

debriefing regarding the portion of the requirements it was not awarded. Master 

Lock filed a protest with our Office on March 18, 2008, arguing that DLA’s selection 

decision was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria because the agency’s 

“neutral” ratings for Evergreen’s proposal under the socio-economic and JWOD

considerations evaluation factors resulted in an award decision that did not consider 

those evaluation factors. We agreed with Master Lock and sustained the protest on 

June 24. Master Lock Co., LLC, B-309982.2, June 24, 2008, 2009 CPD ¶ __ at 11-12. 

Following our decision sustaining the protest, DLA reevaluated the offerors’ 

proposals for the 13 lock types challenged in Master Lock’s first protest. The 

offerors were not permitted to revise their proposals. As relevant here, the agency 

changed Evergreen’s rating for the socio-economic considerations and JWOD

considerations factors from “neutral” ratings to the original ratings of “poor.” The 

final ratings for the offerors were as follows: 

Page 3 B-309982.3
MASTER LOCK EVERGREEN 

PAST PERFORMANCE OUTSTANDING GOOD 

Delivery Good Good

Business relations/

customer satisfaction Outstanding Outstanding 

Quality Outstanding Good

SOCIO-ECONOMIC 

CONSIDERATIONS GOOD POOR 

JWOD CONSIDERATIONS GOOD POOR 

OVERALL RATING OUTSTANDING GOOD 

AR, Tab 10, Revised SSAD, at 2. 

In its revised selection decision, DLA noted that Master Lock’s proposed prices for 

each of the lock types was between 11 and 21 percent higher than Evergreen’s 

proposed prices. The agency stated that, as part of its price/technical tradeoff, it 

considered the relative demand for each of the lock types, as follows: 

In making the price/technical trade off decision for the 13 [lock types]

in question where the price offered by Master Lock is more than 8% 

higher than the price offered by Evergreen, an evaluation of the Annual 

Demand Quantity (ADQ) was completed. The ADQ is used as a 

method of determining for which items the government has the most

critical needs. 

AR, Tab 10, Revised SSAD, at 5. 

In this second selection decision, DLA selected Master Lock for award of the 2 lock

types with the highest demands, and selected Evergreen for award of the remaining 

11 lock types. The RFP stated that the estimated demand for the 2 lock types 

awarded to Master Lock was 480,000 locks per year; the estimated quantity for the 11 

lock types awarded to Evergreen was 40,219 locks per year. RFP at 37-47. DLA 

stated Master Lock’s past performance record provided a high degree of confidence 

that Master Lock could meet the contract requirements for the two highest-demand 

lock types. The agency concluded that the protester’s higher ratings under the past

performance factor, and to a lesser extent its higher rating under the other two 

factors merited the price premium of 11 and 13 percent for the two lock types, as 

compared to Evergreen’s proposal. Id. at 6. 

In selecting Evergreen for award of the remaining 11 lock types, the agency 

concluded that although Evergreen’s past performance ratings were lower than 

Master Lock’s, and thus provided a lower confidence of successful performance, the 

agency could accept a “slightly higher performance” risk in light of the fact that the 

Page 4 B-309982.3
lock types had a lower demand. Id. at 6. The agency also concluded that, for the 

remaining lock types, the differences between the offerors’ ratings under the nonprice factors was less significant in light of the 12 to 21 percent price advantage for 

Evergreen’s proposal. 

DLA advised each offeror of the award decisions, and provided Master Lock a 

debriefing regarding the portion of the requirements it was not awarded. This 

protest followed. 

DISCUSSION 

Master Lock challenges the award of 11 of the 13 remaining lock types to Evergreen 

during the reevaluation. The protester argues that the agency improperly considered

the anticipated “demand” for each lock type in its price/technical tradeoff. The 

protester also argues, in the alternative, that if demand was a proper evaluation 

criterion, the agency’s selection decision elevated its importance in a manner 

inconsistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation scheme. We disagree with both 

of the protester’s arguments. 

Use of “Demand” as an Evaluation Criterion 

First, Master Lock argues that DLA’s consideration of anticipated demand for each 

lock type constituted an undisclosed evaluation criterion. For the reasons discussed 

below, we disagree. 

Agencies are required to evaluate proposals based solely on the factors identified in

the solicitation, and must adequately document the bases for their evaluation 

conclusions. Intercon Assocs., Inc., B-298282, B-298282.2, Aug. 10, 2006, 2006 CPD 

¶ 121 at 5. While agencies properly may apply evaluation considerations that are not 

expressly outlined in the RFP where those considerations are reasonably and 

logically encompassed within the stated evaluation criteria, there must be a clear 

nexus between the stated criteria and the unstated consideration. Global Analytic 

Info. Tech. Servs., Inc., B--298840.2, Feb. 6, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 57 at 4. 

As discussed above, DLA’s selection decision considered the anticipated volume of 

orders for each lock type, as identified in the RFP. Specifically, the selection 

decision considered whether offerors’ past performance demonstrated that they 

could meet the “demand” for the higher-volume lock types. AR, Tab 10, Revised 

SSAD, at 5. Master Lock argues that the solicitation did not state that DLA would 

consider “demand” as an evaluation factor, and that the agency had therefore 

departed from the evaluation scheme. 

The RFP stated that the agency would consider the overall relevance of offerors’ past 

performance as follows: “Past performance information will be used in the 

determination of the best value to the Government. This evaluation process will 

focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the type, 

Page 5 B-309982.3
size and complexity of this acquisition.” RFP at 66. The RFP also stated that the 

delivery subfactor of the past performance factor would evaluate offerors’ 

performance record to assess their ability to deliver the required volumes of locks. 

Specifically, the delivery subfactor stated as follows: 

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Delivery. We will review

the offeror’s record of on-time performance. Accordingly, the offeror’s 

past performance record will be evaluated to ensure its ability to 

handle the volume of sales similar to the solicitation’s estimated

requirements with on-time delivery and to assess its experience in 

complex contracting with an emphasis on Stock Delivery. 

Id. at 67. 

With regard to the two lock types for which the RFP anticipated the highest demand, 

DLA concluded that Master Lock’s past performance record provided the agency a 

high degree of confidence that the offeror would be able to meet the requirements 

for providing the high-demand lock types. Id. at 6. With regard to the remaining 11 

lock types, the agency concluded that although Evergreen’s past performance record

demonstrated a “slightly higher performance risk” because the offeror did not have 

as much experience with high-demand item delivery as compared to Master Lock, 

this risk was acceptable because Evergreen would be providing the lower-demand

lock types. Id. at 6-7. 

We think the solicitation advised offerors that their past performance records would 

be evaluated based on relevance, thereby making the offeror’s performance of higher 

and lower-demand requirements relevant. We further think that the agency’s 

consideration of the demand for each lock type and the offerors’ delivery records 

was reasonably and logically encompassed within the express terms of the delivery 

subfactor. On this record we find no merit to the protester’s argument that the 

agency used an undisclosed evaluation criterion. 

Weight of “Delivery” Subfactor in the Selection Decision 

Next, Master Lock argues that even if DLA properly considered demand for each 

lock type in its evaluation of offerors’ past performance, the agency placed an 

improper emphasis on this criterion in a way that was inconsistent with the stated 

evaluation scheme. For the reasons discussed below, we disagree. 

As discussed above, the RFP stated that past performance was the most important

non-price evaluation factor. The RFP also stated that the three past performance 

subfactors of delivery, business relations/customer satisfaction, and quality were of 

equal importance. Master Lock argues that DLA improperly treated delivery as more 

important than the other past performance subfactors, and thereby departed from

the solicitation’s stated evaluation scheme. Specifically, the protester contends that 

although the selection decision discusses the offerors’ delivery records, the agency 

Page 6 B-309982.3
did not address the offerors’ evaluations under the other two subfactors. We find 

these arguments without merit.

The record does not show, as the protester argues, that DLA considered only the 

delivery subfactor, and ignored the business relations/customer satisfaction and 

quality subfactors. Instead, the selection decision discussed the degree to which the 

ratings under all three subfactors demonstrated confidence in the offeror’s ability to

meet the solicitation requirements. Id. With regard to each offeror, the agency also 

addressed the relevance of each offerors’ past performance, particularly with regard 

to each offeror’s ability to deliver the volume of locks required under the contract. 

AR, Tab 10, Revised SSAD, at 3. 

As discussed above, we think the agency’s consideration of “demand” was 

reasonably related to both the overall evaluation of the relevance of the offerors’ 

past performance, and to the specific subfactor of delivery. We do not agree with the

protester that because more words were devoted to the discussion of the delivery 

subfactor than to the specific ratings under the business relations/customer 

satisfaction and quality subfactors, the agency departed from the evaluation scheme. 

In this regard, the selection decision shows that DLA considered the overall past 

performance evaluation in a tradeoff between the price and non-price evaluation 

factors. The record further shows that for each lock type, the agency weighed 

Evergreen’s lower price against Master Lock’s higher ratings under the past 

performance, socio-economic considerations and JWOD considerations factors. In

light of Master Lock’s higher prices, the agency determined that the protester’s 

advantage under the non-price evaluation factors merited award to the protester 

only for those lock types where the high volume of orders decreased the confidence 

in Evergreen’s ability to perform. 

In sum, we think the record shows that DLA considered all of the evaluation factors 

and made its selection decision in a manner consistent with the solicitation. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 7 B-309982.3