Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Armacel Armor Corporation 

File: B-400239.2 

Date: October 22, 2008 

David Fernandez, Armacel Armor Corporation, for the protester. 

Lynne Georges, Esq., and Marlene Surrena, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the 

agency. 

Linda C. Glass, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that agency’s evaluation and source selection decision were flawed is denied 

where record shows that the agency’s evaluation and source selection were 

reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation factors. 

DECISION 

Armacel Armor Corporation protests the award of a contract to ArmorWorks 

Enterprises, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPM1C1-07-R-0077, issued 

by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, for a 

component of personal armor called Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts (ESBI).1

 

Armacel primarily objects to the agency’s evaluation of proposals and the source 

selection decision. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP was issued June 8, 2007 as a small business set-aside and contemplated the 

award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a 

base year and two 1-year option periods. Award was to be made on a “best value” 

basis, considering price and four non-price evaluation factors, which the RFP 

identified as: product demonstration model(s), past performance/experience, surge 

 

1

 The ESBI is worn by ground troops and provides enhanced ballistic protection from 

specific ammunition rounds. Agency Report (AR), Tab 18, Purchase Description. 
and sustainment capability, and DLA mentoring business agreements. RFP at 69. 

For the product demonstration model evaluation factor, offerors were required to 

submit a sample, essentially, to be tested and assessed regarding the sample’s 

compliance with four requirements, which were identified as subfactors. These 

subfactors were titled visual requirements, dimensional requirements, ballistic 

requirements, and weight requirements. Id.

With respect to the DLA mentoring agreement program, the RFP advised that 

proposals would be compared to each other and ranked. These rankings were based 

on an assessment of whether the proposal demonstrated a strong commitment to

mentoring small businesses, small disadvantaged business, or women-owned small 

businesses, veteran-owned small businesses and service disabled veteran-owned 

small businesses. RFP at 72. The RFP also explained that the non-price evaluation 

factors were, collectively, significantly more important than price, but to the extent

that proposals were found closer to equal, price would become more important. 

RFP at 69. 

The agency received six proposals by the August 2, 2007 closing date. The technical 

evaluation results for the proposals rated technically acceptable were as follows: 

 

ARMACEL ARMORWORKS OFFEROR A 

Product

Demonstration 

Model2

Very Good Very Good Satisfactory 

Past Performance 

/Experience Very Good Satisfactory Satisfactory 

Surge Capability Marginal Satisfactory Satisfactory 

DLA Mentoring Did Not Submit 13Did Not Submit

 Overall Rating Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

 Price $57.1 million $40.0 million $40.2 million 

Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 3. 

 2

 Both ArmorWorks and Offeror A submitted more than one sample for assessment. 

The four samples submitted by ArmorWorks were rated: very good, satisfactory, 

very good and very good. AR Tab 4, Price Negotiation Memo at 5. 

3

 Despite the RFP’s indication that offerors would be ranked under the DLA 

mentoring business agreements evaluation factor, RFP at 72, the evaluators did not 

rank proposals in this area. Instead, offerors that submitted a mentoring plan

received a rating of “1” and offerors who did not submit a plan were evaluated “did

not submit.” AR, Tab 4, Price Negotiation Memo, at 26. Armacel did not challenge 

this deviation from the stated evaluation scheme. 

Page 2 B-400239.2 
The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the evaluation results and noted that 

Armacel was considered technically superior under the product demonstration 

model evaluation factor, notwithstanding the same adjectival rating of very good for 

both firms. Armacel was also rated higher under the past performance/experience 

evaluation factor. ArmorWorks was rated higher under the third and fourth 

evaluation factors--surge and sustainment capability, and DLA mentoring business 

agreements. Overall, the SSA concluded that while Armacel’s proposal reflected a 

“slight technical advantage” the lower price offered by ArmorWorks represented the 

best value to the government. AR, Tab 10, Source Selection Decision Document, at 

8. 

By letter dated June 5, Armacel was notified that ArmorWorks was the proposed 

awardee, and Armacel was given an opportunity to challenge the small business size

status of ArmorWorks. On June 6, Armacel raised that challenge, and by letter dated 

June 17, 2008, the Small Business Administration (SBA) dismissed Armacel’s size 

protest for lack of evidence. Armacel was notified of the award to ArmorWorks on

July 3. Armacel received a debriefing on July 10 and filed this protest on July 18. 

Armacel essentially argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated Armacel’s and 

ArmorWorks’ proposals and failed to perform a proper best value determination.4

 

Our Office reviews challenges to an agency’s evaluation of proposals only to 

determine whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the solicitation’s 

evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Marine 

Animal Prods. Int’l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 16 at 5. A protester’s 

mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment is not sufficient to establish that an 

agency acted unreasonably. Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD 

¶ 70 at 3. 

With respect to the evaluation of ArmorWorks’ proposal, Armacel contends that

ArmorWorks received a “very good” rating for past performance/experience 

 4

 Armacel also protests the small business size status of ArmorWorks. As previously 

stated, the SBA dismissed Armacel’s size status protest by letter dated June 17, 2008. 

The record also shows that by letter dated December 28, 2007, the SBA determined 

that ArmorWorks was small. AR, Tab 17, SBA Size Determination. The Small 

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(6), gives the SBA, not our Office, conclusive 

authority to determine matters of small business size status for federal 

procurements. We therefore will not review a protester’s challenge to another 

company’s size status, nor will we review a decision by the SBA that a company is, or 

is not, a small business for purposes of federal procurements. Bid Protest

Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(b)(1) (2008); Randolph Eng’g Sunglasses, B-2800270, 

Aug. 10, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 39 at 3. 

Page 3 B-400239.2 
notwithstanding the fact that ArmorWorks has had past performance issues with

respect to timely delivery of ESBI. 

The record shows, as indicated above, that ArmorWorks received an overall rating of 

“satisfactory” under the past performance/experience evaluation factor, not a rating 

of “very good” as the protester contends. The agency recognized that ArmorWorks 

had extensive experience producing the ESBI and was currently producing these 

items, but also noted that ArmorWorks had, in the past, experienced production 

issues that caused testing failures and late deliveries. AR, Tab 10, Source Selection 

Decision, at 6. We have no basis to question the agency’s evaluation of ArmorWorks’ 

proposal as satisfactory under the past performance/experience factor, especially 

given the agency’s recognition of certain problems in the awardee’s past 

performance, and its decision that the company’s past performance, while meriting a 

rating of satisfactory, could not be given one of the higher ratings--like the rating of

very good given the protester for its past performance. 

Armacel next protests the evaluation of its own proposal under the product

demonstration model and past performance/experience evaluation factors. 

As indicated above, the record shows that Armacel’s proposal was rated “very good” 

under both of the evaluation factors Armacel challenges--the product demonstration 

model and the past performance/experience evaluation factors. The record also 

shows that the agency considered Armacel’s proposal to be superior to ArmorWorks’ 

proposal under both factors. Nonetheless, Armacel argues that it should have 

received ratings of “exceptional” under both of these evaluation factors. 

The RFP defined an “exceptional” rating under the product demonstration model 

evaluation factor as an assessment that the sample submitted had no deficiencies. 

RFP at 71. Armacel’s sample did not satisfy all the specifications in that the 

evaluators determined that the submitted item did not comply with the thickness 

level requirement.5

 Thus, in accordance with the RFP, Armacel could not be rated 

“exceptional” for this evaluation factor. We therefore have no basis to question the 

reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation of “very good” for the product

demonstration model evaluation factor. Moreover, the agency always viewed 

Armacel’s proposal as superior to ArmorWorks’ proposal under both the product

demonstration model and the past performance/experience evaluation factors; the 

agency also viewed the above-described deficiency as one that could be easily 

corrected. 

 5

 During the course of this protest, the agency concluded that two noted deficiencies 

involving the protester’s departure from dimensional requirements and ballistic 

requirements were no longer deficiencies. Agency’s September 10, 2008 Rebuttal 

Comments. Thus, we are addressing the only remaining deficiency identified with 

the sample submitted by Armacel. 

Page 4 B-400239.2 
Similarly, with respect to the past performance/experience evaluation factor, the 

RFP provided that in order to be rated “exceptional” an offeror had to demonstrate 

that it had extensive experience with items of a similar kind and complexity, and 

that it has a record of past performance with few minor problems. As stated above, 

Armacel was rated “very good” under this evaluation factor. The agency noted that

Armacel had never manufactured the ESBI but had manufactured a similar item, and 

also noted that although the protester had problems in the past making timely 

deliveries, the agency’s view was that the protester had successfully resolved those 

problems. On this record, we have no basis to question the reasonableness of the 

agency’s rating of Armacel’s proposal as “very good” under the past

performance//experience evaluation factor. 

As stated earlier, the agency concluded that Armacel submitted the superior 

technical proposal in this competition, but also concluded that Armacel’s technical 

advantage did not justify a price premium of 42.6 percent over the price of the 

ArmorWorks proposal. In short, the agency always recognized Armacel’s technical 

advantages, but given Armacel’s significant price premium coupled with its 

“marginal” rating for the surge factor, the agency determined that Armacel’s proposal 

did not represent the best value to the government.6

 We see no basis to question the 

agency’s evaluation conclusions, or its determination that the proposal submitted by 

ArmorWorks provided the best value to the government. 

The protest is denied. 

 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

 6

 We note that Armacel does not challenge its evaluation under the surge evaluation 

factor which was rated “marginal” because the agency determined that Armacel 

failed to demonstrate that they had the ability to manufacture the surge requirement 

or that they had or could obtain sufficient equipment, facilities, materials and 

personnel to satisfy the surge requirements. 

Page 5 B-400239.2