text:
Master Lock Company, LLC
B-309982.2: Jun 24, 2008
Additional Materials:
- Full Report:
(202) 512-8278
Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
Master Lock Company, LLC 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 evaluated the offerors' technical proposals and the awardee's representations regarding compliance with the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), and that the award determination was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.
We sustain the protest.
B-309982.2, Master Lock Company, LLC, June 24, 2008
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of: Master Lock Company, LLC
William M. Weisberg, Esq., Beth L. Jacobson, Esq., and Joyce L. Tong, Esq., Sullivan
& Worcester LLP, for the protester.
Matthew O. Geary, 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.
1. Protest is sustained where agency's evaluation of awardee's proposal as neutral under two evaluation factors resulted in those factors not being considered in the tradeoff determination, which was inconsistent with solicitation's award criteria.
2. Protest is denied where agency reasonably relied on awardee's representations regarding compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.
Master Lock Company, LLC 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 evaluated the offerors' technical proposals and the awardee's representations regarding compliance with the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), and that the award determination was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.
The RFP was issued on
The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following non-price factors, in descending order of importance: past performance, socio-economic considerations, and Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act considerations.[1] RFP at 64-65. The past performance evaluation factor had three equally-weighted subfactors: delivery, business relations/customer satisfaction, and quality.
Under the socio-economic and JWOD considerations evaluation factors, offerors were instructed to describe the efforts they would take to ensure that small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns and JWOD concerns will have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts in this acquisition. RFP at 59. Under each of these factors, offerors were required to provide the following information:
Describe any future plans your company has for developing additional subcontracting possibilities for [small business and JWOD concerns].
. . . Specify what proportion of your proposal, as a percentage of dollars, will be subcontracted to [small business and JWOD concerns].
With regard to both evaluation factors, the RFP stated that [a]n offeror who proposes a higher percentage, complexity level, and variety of participation by small business and JWOD concerns, will receive a higher rating. RFP at 67-68.
The solicitation incorporated the clause at Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) sect. 252.225-7021(a)(12), which implements provisions of the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), 19 U.S.C. sect. 2501 et seq. The TAA clause requires offerors to provide only U.S.-made, qualifying country, or designated country end products, absent circumstances not relevant here. DFARS sect. 252.225-7021(c). DLA received proposals from four offerors: Master Lock, Evergreen, Pacific Lock Co. (PLC), and a fourth offeror. Agency Report[2] (AR) at 3. During the initial evaluation of proposals by the technical evaluation team (TET), DLA determined that the fourth offeror's proposal was technically unacceptable, and eliminated it from award consideration. AR at 3. The agency also determined PLC's proposal indicated that the offeror would not comply with the TAA requirements, and eliminated that offeror's proposal from award consideration.[3]
With respect to Evergreen's TAA certification, DLA concluded that an additional inquiry was required. AR at 8. Evergreen left the TAA certificate blank in its proposal, thereby taking no exception to the blanket statement that none of the products it would supply would fail to meet the requirements of the TAA. AR, Tab 6, Evergreen Proposal, at 79. The agency was aware, however, that in July 2007 Evergreen declined to accept an order from DLA for locks under a different indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract, and did so under circumstances which indicated that the company was doing business with a supplier that had manufacturing facilities in
After receiving the additional information from Evergreen, the TET accepted as adequate both offerors' representations that they would comply with the TAA. Specifically, the agency concluded that both proposed to supply locks manufactured in designated countries, see DFARS sect. 252.225-7021(a)(3)(i), with Master Lock proposing to manufacture its locks in Mexico, and Evergreen proposing to supply locks manufactured by [deleted] in [deleted]. AR, Tab 9, Pre-Negotiation Briefing Memorandum (PBM), at 5.
The TET also determined 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).[4] AR, Tab 9, PBM, at 2. The agency requested that Evergreen submit a revised proposal that addressed these factors. Although Evergreen submitted a proposal revision detailing its approach, the TET concluded that the proposal still merited a rating of poor under those evaluation factors. AR, Tab 11, Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM), at 2.
The contracting officer (CO) determined, however, that Evergreen's proposal should instead be rated neutral under the socio-economic and JWOD evaluation factors because, as a small business, Evergreen has fewer opportunities to subcontract to meet the socio-economic and JWOD factors.
The final ratings for the offerors were as follows:
Business relations/ customer satisfaction
AR, Tab 11, PNM, at 2; Tab 12, SSD, at 1-2.
In the tradeoff determination, the SSA stated that the evaluation of offerors was completed using price and past performance as evaluation factors, weighted equally. AR, Tab 12, SSD, at 1. 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.
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.
The protester challenges the award of 13 lock types to Evergreen. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably determined that Evergreen's proposal met the requirements of the TAA, that the agency's evaluation of the offerors' proposals under the socio-economic and JWOD considerations evaluation factors was unreasonable, and that the agency's evaluation of Master Lock's past performance was unreasonable. As discussed below, we find no merit to these arguments. The protester also argues that the agency failed to consider the socio-economic and JWOD considerations evaluation factors in the selection decision. We agree with the protester regarding this argument, and sustain the protest on this basis.
TAA Compliance Evaluation
Master Lock contends that the agency unreasonably ignored evidence that Evergreen would not perform the contract in compliance with the TAA. Specifically, the protester argues that the agency did not reasonably consider Evergreen's inability to provide locks under a different contract under circumstances that suggested non-compliance with the TAA. We disagree.
When a bidder or offeror represents that it will furnish end products of designated or qualifying countries (including domestic end products) in accordance with the TAA, it is obligated under the contract to comply with that representation. That is, where a bidder or offeror leaves the certificate blank and does not exclude any end product from the certificate, and does not otherwise indicate that it is offering anything other than a TAA-compliant end product, acceptance of the offer will result in an obligation on the offeror's or bidder's part to furnish a TAA-compliant end product. Wyse Tech., Inc., B-297454,
In its proposal, Evergreen left the TAA certificate blank, thereby indicating that it would provide locks that complied with the TAA. AR, Tab 6, Evergreen Proposal, at 79. As discussed above, however, DLA determined that additional inquiry regarding Evergreen's representation was required, based on the company's prior contracting history. AR at 11. As also explained above, DLA inquired because, in response to an earlier order issued by the agency, Evergreen advised DLA that its supplier, [deleted], could not provide a sample that met the specifications of the order because [t]heir factory in China is new and is not yet 100% operational, and [t]herefore, they cannot provide a sample at this time. AR, Tab 13, Email from Evergreen to DLA,
During DLA's evaluation here, the agency contacted Evergreen by telephone to confirm the site of manufacture for the locks. AR at 11. Evergreen confirmed via email that its supplier was [deleted], and that the factory where the . . . locks are made is located in the city of [deleted]. AR, Tab 6, Email from Evergreen to DLA,
We think the record shows that the agency considered the available information concerning Evergreen's supplier, contacted Evergreen to confirm details regarding the TAA representation for this solicitation, and reasonably relied on Evergreen's confirmation that the locks would manufactured in [deleted], a TAA-designated country. Further, the record shows that the locks to be provided under the canceled order were not the same models as those to be provided under the award challenged here. AR at 8. On this record, we conclude that DLA reasonably addressed any concerns regarding Evergreen's representation that it would comply with the requirements of the TAA.[5]
Socio-Economic and JWOD Considerations Evaluation
Next, Master Lock contends that Evergreen's proposal should have been rejected as unacceptable for failing to address the socio-economic and JWOD evaluation factors in its proposal. We disagree because the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that Evergreen's proposal merited a rating of poor under these factors, but was not unacceptable.
The evaluation of an offeror's proposal, including past performance, is a matter within the agency's discretion. IPlus, Inc., B-298020, B-298020.2,
As discussed above, Evergreen did not address either factor in its initial proposal, and the agency rated Evergreen's proposal as poor under these factors. AR, Tab 9, PBM, at 5. The agency conducted discussions with Evergreen and requested that the offeror revise its proposal to address these factors. The TET evaluated Evergreen's revised proposal, but concluded that it still merited a poor rating under the factors because the information submitted did not justify a change in [the company's] initial rating. AR, Tab 11, PNM, at 2.
Master Lock argues that the revised proposal did not meet the RFP requirement that offerors identify the portion of your proposal, as a percentage of dollars, [that] will be subcontracted to small business and JWOD concerns, and should therefore have been rejected as technically unacceptable. RFP at 59. On this issue, Evergreen's proposal stated that [deleted]% of the company's current subcontracted work is with small, woman-owned, or veteran-owned businesses, and that the company's goal for the future is to increase this amount to [deleted]%. Supplemental Agency Report (SAR), attach. 9, Evergreen Revised Proposal, at 1. Evergreen did not, however, address what percentage of work or dollar value it proposed to subcontract to small businesses for this contract. See id. With respect to the JWOD considerations evaluation factor, Evergreen stated that it has been in contact with the JWOD program and states that the company and its supplier [deleted] have expressed interest in partnering with JWOD concerns in the future.
We conclude that the agency's evaluation was reasonable. The RFP did not require offerors to propose a minimum level of subcontract participation for small business or JWOD concerns. See RFP at 59. Rather, the RFP merely required offerors to identify the efforts offerors would make to encourage subcontracting opportunities. The record here indicates that the agency considered Evergreen's proposal to merit a poor rating under both subfactors. The SSP states that a poor rating indicates that the offeror either does not address [socio-economic or JWOD subcontracting] plans or states that it has no plans to subcontract with either small business or JWOD concerns. AR, Tab 8, SSP, at 6. The poor rating appears to show that the agency concluded that Evergreen did not make a specific commitment for subcontracting--a conclusion we think is consistent with Evergreen's proposal. In effect, we think the record shows that the agency rated Evergreen as proposing $0 for small business and JWOD concern subcontracts. As discussed above, the RFP did not prohibit offerors from proposing a $0 level of subcontracting participation.
On this record, we find no basis to sustain the protest. As discussed below, however, we conclude that the SSA's subsequent consideration of Evergreen's evaluation under these factors in the selection decision was not reasonable.
Past Performance Evaluation
The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance under the delivery subfactor as good, rather than applying the higher rating of outstanding. We disagree.
The agency received seven past performance references for Master Lock. AR, Tab 8, Master Lock Past Performance References. Four references rated Master Lock's delivery as outstanding, two as good, and one did not provide a rating.
Master Lock argues that the survey forms all state that the company had no delays in delivery, and that the agency's evaluation of the company's performance as having problems with delivery was unreasonable. We agree that the survey forms all state yes in response to the question Was/were deliveries on time? AR, Tab 8, Master Lock Past Performance Evaluations. However, for four of those references, the surveys stated the delivery was on time, but also that delays were adequately addressed. Furthermore, those four references each described some degree of delay or error with delivery, but stated that Master Lock had always adequately addressed the problems.
To the extent there is a contradiction between the references stating on the survey form that Master Lock's deliveries were on time, but also that delays were adequately addressed, we think that the agency reasonably interpreted these responses as indicating less than perfect delivery at all times. Additionally, the agency's assessment of Master Lock's delivery record is consistent with the ABVS rating, which does not show 100% on-time delivery. On this record, we conclude that the agency's evaluation of Master Lock's past performance was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria.
Tradeoff and Selection Decision
Master Lock argues that the selection decision was flawed for two reasons: (1) the selection decision relied on a mechanical comparison of offerors' proposed prices, and (2) the selection decision excluded consideration of Evergreen's evaluation under the socio-economic and JWOD considerations evaluation factors. We disagree with the first argument, but agree with the second one.
First, the protester argues that the selection decision was based solely on a mechanical comparison of the offerors' proposed price, rather than a tradeoff between price and non-price factors, as required by the solicitation. Specifically, the protester contends that the selection decision was made based on an arbitrary price evaluation that split the difference between the offerors' prices.
Where a price/technical tradeoff is made, the selection decision must be documented, and the documentation must include the rationale for any tradeoffs made, including the benefits associated with additional costs. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.308. It is improper for an agency to rely on a purely mathematical price/technical tradeoff methodology. Opti-Lite Optical, B-281693,
Here, the record shows that the SSA used the average of the offerors' prices as a starting point for the tradeoff determination, but also considered the non-price factors. The SSA noted that offerors prices ranged in difference from 1% to 17% from each other, with the average difference being approximately 8%. AR, Tab 12, SSD, at 1. The SSA determined that, based on Master Lock's superior past performance, award would be made to Master Lock for all lock types where that offeror's price was either lower, or was no more than 8% higher than Evergreen's price.
We think this evaluation was reasonable because the non-price evaluation for each offeror was to be based on factors that did not depend on which lock was being offered--i.e., past performance, socio-economic considerations, and JWOD considerations. Consequently, price was the only difference between the offerors regarding each of the distinct lock types offered. The SSA's determination was for each lock type, in essence, that an 8% difference represented a reasonable price premium for Master Lock's advantage on the non-price evaluation. In sum, we conclude that this tradeoff decision was not merely a mechanical comparison of price, but instead represented a reasonable exercise of business judgment by the SSA.
Finally, Master Lock argues that the SSA's decision to rate Evergreen's proposal neutral under the socio-economic and JWOD evaluation factors was inconsistent with the solicitation. DLA contends that its selection decision did take these factors into consideration, and that the neutral ratings were consistent with the solicitation. We agree with the protester that the agency's assignment of neutral evaluation ratings was unreasonable, and further conclude that the evaluation was inconsistent with the solicitation's stated award scheme because it resulted in a selection decision that ignored the socio-economic and JWOD evaluation factors.
The record here shows that the tradeoff decision considered only one of the non-price evaluation factors, past performance. For the 22 lock types awarded to Master Lock, the SSA concluded that the protester's outstanding rating for past performance demonstrated the best overall value to the government, with price and past performance weighted equally. AR, Tab 12, SSD, at 1. For the 13 lock types awarded to Evergreen and challenged by the protester, the record also shows that the agency did not consider the socio-economic or JWOD considerations evaluation factors. The SSA concluded that [f]or the remaining 13 items . . . award is recommended to Evergreen, because Evergreen is the lowest priced offeror, and their past performance is rated overall as good.
Thus, the record shows, the tradeoff decision did not consider the socio-economic or JWOD considerations evaluation factors. The solicitation stated, however, that price would be considered along with three non-price factors: past performance, socio-economic considerations, and JWOD considerations. RFP at 66. Furthermore, the RFP specifically advised offerors that [a]n offeror who proposes a higher percentage, complexity level, and variety of participation by small business and JWOD concerns, will receive a higher rating. RFP at 67-68. On this record, we conclude that the selection decision was inconsistent with the solicitation's award scheme.
DLA contends that, notwithstanding the solicitation's identification of three non-price factors, the agency had a reasonable basis for rating Evergreen's proposal as neutral under these factors, and thus not factoring them into the award determination.[7] The agency contends that the neutral ratings were reasonable because Evergreen was itself a small business offeror, and thus has fewer opportunities to subcontract to meet the socio-economic and JWOD factors. AR, Tab 11, PNM, at 4; Tab 12, SSD, at 1. The agency also argues that a neutral rating for a small business was reasonable because it furthered the agency's goal of promoting opportunities for small businesses. SAR at 13.[8]
The clear effect of these neutral ratings, as discussed above, was that the agency only considered one non-price factor: past performance. Nothing in the RFP stated that small business offerors were exempt from evaluation under these factors, or that an offeror's status as a small business could offset an otherwise negative rating under these factors. For the same reason, we think the agency unreasonably concluded that Evergreen's status as a small business and its poor ratings made that offeror equal to Master Lock's good ratings for these evaluation factors. Furthermore, DLA's rationale for rating Evergreen as neutral under the socio-economic considerations factor because the offeror was itself a small business has no rational relevance to the evaluation of the offeror under the JWOD considerations factor.
In sum, we conclude that DLA's tradeoff decision for the 13 lock types awarded to Evergreen relied on a tradeoff that only considered past performance and price, based on the agency's unreasonable determination that Evergreen's proposal should be rated neutral under the socio-economic and JWOD considerations evaluation factors. We further conclude that because Master Lock had a higher rating than Evergreen for these factors, the protester was prejudiced by this error, and sustain the protest because of the flawed tradeoff decision. See McDonald Bradley, B-270126,
Additional Past Performance Evaluation Concern
During the course of this protest, Master Lock also argued that the agency's evaluation of Evergreen's past performance was unreasonable. As discussed above, Evergreen declined to accept order No. 2745, which was issued under a different contract. DLA acknowledges that it did not consider these events in its evaluation of Evergreen's past performance. AR at 8. The agency contends, however, that it was not required to do so because the submission of a quote by a vendor under an ID/IQ contract does not result in a binding obligation.[9] Thus, the agency argues, because Evergreen did not accept the order, there was no contract performance for the agency to evaluate.
The agency is correct that neither the submission of a quote by a vendor nor the issuance of an order by an agency results in a binding contractual obligation. Rather, the government's order represents an offer that the vendor may accept either through performance or by a formal acceptance document. M. Braun, Inc., B-298935.2,
We disagree, however, with DLA's view as to the relevance of a vendor's rejection of an order to a past performance evaluation. A vendor who has been awarded an ID/IQ contract has a contractual relationship with the agency that awarded the underlying contract. Although the work required under any task or delivery order will only become a binding obligation on the parties if the vendor accepts the order, the underlying ID/IQ contract may itself have obligations. For example, a contract may require a vendor to accept orders placed by the agency within certain parameters. If a vendor were required to accept certain orders placed against the contract, but was unable to do so, this could be a matter relevant to the evaluation of that vendor's past performance.
Our Office requested that the agency address whether under the terms of the contract against which orders could be placed with Evergreen, vendors were required to fill orders, or whether [Evergreen] was free to decline to accept the order based on an inability to fill the order. GAO Request for SAR,
We recommend that the agency conduct a new selection decision for the 13 lock types awarded to Evergreen that follows the award scheme identified in the solicitation, consistent with this decision. As part of this new selection decision, the agency should reevaluate Evergreen's past performance, consistent with this decision. If Evergreen's proposal is not found to offer the best value to the government for any of these lock types, the agency should terminate or modify Evergreen's contract for the convenience of the government consistent with the new selection decision.
We also recommend that Master Lock be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing this protest, including reasonable attorney fees. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1) (2008). Master Lock should submit its certified claim for costs, detailing the time expended and cost incurred, directly to the contracting agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1).
The protest is sustained.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] The JWOD Act establishes the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, and authorizes it to establish and maintain a list of commodities and services provided by qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or severely handicapped that it has determined are suitable for procurement by the government. 41 U.S.C. sections 46(a), 47(a) (2000).
[2] DLA submitted a document titled Report of the Contracting Officer which was signed by the source selection authority (SSA), instead of the contracting officer (CO). This document comprised the initial agency's report on the protest and is referred to herein as the Agency Report. The agency also submitted a document titled Supplemental Report of the Contracting Officer which was signed by both the SSA and CO. This document comprised the agency's response to supplemental protest grounds filed by Master Lock and additional questions from our Office, and is referred to herein as the Supplemental Agency Report.
[3] PLC filed a bid protest with our Office, arguing that the agency had not applied the correct standards in evaluating its proposal's compliance with the TAA. We denied the protest, concluding that the agency had reasonably determined that PLC's proposal, which called for the assembly in the
[4] 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 socio-economic and JWOD considerations evaluations, the agency used an evaluation scheme of outstanding, good, fair and poor.
[5] Master Lock also argues that the agency should have questioned Evergreen's compliance with the TAA because its proposal indicated a 15-20 day gap between the date that an order is sent to its supplier, [deleted], and the date the lock enters production. The protester contends that the delay suggests that [deleted] might be obtaining parts from a non-TAA compliant source. This argument is merely speculative, and does not provide a basis to sustain the protest.
[6] The ABVS is an automated system which collects and analyzes vendors' past performance history for a specific period and translates it into a numeric score; it is based on considerations of delivery and quality.
[7] In the supplemental AR, DLA states that the SSA rated Evergreen's proposal as neutral under the socio-economic evaluation factor, but did not change the poor rating for the JWOD evaluation factor. SAR at 11. We do not think the record supports this view. The selection decision states Evergreen was rated as poor in two factors--socio-economic and JWOD. . . . The contracting officer considers these factors to be neutral, since they are a small business themselves. AR, Tab 12, SSD, at 1 (emphasis added). Thus, the selection decision was based on an evaluation of Evergreen's proposal as neutral under both evaluation factors.
[8] The FAR states that small business offerors without a record of relevant past performance may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iv). The socio-economic and JWOD consideration evaluation factors did not, however, address past performance; rather they addressed offerors' proposals to subcontract to small business and JWOD concerns during contract performance.
[9] Vendor is the common term for a contractor who has received an ID/IQ contract, and to whom task and delivery orders are issued under such a contract.
Oct 23, 2020
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
We deny the protest.
Oct 22, 2020
Academy Medical, LLC
We deny the protest.
Colonna's Shipyard, Inc.
We dismiss the protest in part, and deny it in part.
Knight Point Systems, LLC
We sustain the protest.
J&J Worldwide Services
We deny the protest.
Oct 20, 2020
MindPoint Group, LLC
We deny the protest.
Oct 16, 2020
Potomac Electric Corporation
We deny the protest.
Oct 15, 2020
Island Pyrochemical Industries
We dismiss the protest.
Oct 14, 2020
MicroTechnologies, LLC
We deny the protest.
Looking for more? Browse all our products here


text:
"The food at my country club is terrific," some readers have said to me over the years. "Would you review it?" Or, at the grimmer end of the spectrum, "The food at my country club needs help. Would you review it?"
My question to them: "Is it open to the public?" The answer has always been no, so mine was, too.
The former Mequon Country Club reopened last year as River Club of Mequon under new ownership, after a top-to-bottom renovation. And it gave me reason to visit when dining room and bar, the Nines, was opened to the public in November.
It turns out that the seasonal food by chef Justin Disbrow gives anyone a reason to visit. Small plates and entrées with some interesting takes - such as pheasant and waffle - were consistently delicious.
The dessert menu, though, is anti-climactic by comparison, even if well-prepared.
While the menu's list of appetizers isn't lengthy, any of the entrées can be ordered as a small plate to share as an appetizer. Recently, the Nines' casual bar menu and its dinner menu were rolled into one, as guests could order from either no matter where they sat.
So, now on one menu are options such as plump mussels and thin, crisp fries ($9) with roasted garlic or smoked chile mayonnaise for dunking - could be a meal in itself, actually. (For a quick but memorable meal at the bar, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the seafood tacos, filled with sweet scallop, shrimp and fish of the day, two for $12.)
Cheese or charcuterie plates (three for $10 or five for $15) could start a meal or wind down a night over drinks. Ample portions of artisanal cheeses, mostly from Wisconsin, are delivered on a thick wooden board with thin apple slices, fig jam, tiny toasts and cornichons.
The Wisconsin harvest salad ($6) makes a bounteous first course, with roasted winter squash and goat cheese tumbled with mixed greens in cranberry wine vinaigrette. The kitchen puts an appealing spin on wedge salads ($6) by adding smoked salmon, cucumber salad, smoked pickles and horseradish dressing.
Openers are good, but the main event is where the kitchen really cooks.
From nine dishes, guests can eat as they please: You like full-size entrées? Order an entrée. You like tasting some of this and some of that, or just smaller portions in general? Order small plates.
The restaurant also offers flights of three small plates at a better price than if ordered separately, but it's a great deal of food, served on a table-hogging tray. One flight probably would be enough for two, especially if an appetizer were involved.
A gem on the menu is the dish of seared sea scallops ($15 small plate, $31 entrée), served with braised pineapple, coconut foam and red curry that delivers just enough heat to match the sweetness.
The menu dabbles in other world flavors: Slow-smoked pork shoulder ($9, $21) shares the plate with sweet potato, apple, a chocolate-based mole and dabs of house-made queso fresco; tender crisped duck breast ($11, $26) is served with braised cabbage in kimchi broth. It's gentle for kimchi and could deliver even more of a punch.
The tenderloin steer filet ($15, $30) is exceptional; I've had butter that's put up more resistance to a knife. It's served with smoked au gratin potatoes, mushrooms and caramelized onion; the sauce gets character from Cabernet and brandy.
In another hearty dish, ultra-tender buffalo short rib ($12, $22) is matched with celery root that's pureed with ginger, and little, vivid-green bok choy.
The Nines elevates the classic Southern dish of chicken and waffles by serving pheasant instead, with maple syrup and tangy cranberry-tomato jam for a counterpoint.
Beer can chicken enchiladas with robust pork belly baked beans ($9, $19) might be the least dazzling plate, but it's still a fine dish. That's not a bad score.
After a dinner of dishes like those, the excitement screeched to a halt with dessert. None was bad, but none matched the level of the main course.
Crème brulee was flawless in execution, but it's a dessert that's become a cliché. Chocolate blackout cake, covered in ganache, was served as a simple wedge of layer cake, and bread pudding was cut in a simple square - good flavors, both, but homey presentations that didn't look as if they'd come from the same kitchen as that scallop dish. I'd like to see what this kitchen could do with a chef dedicated solely to pastry.
Service over several visits typically was excellent, from the basics and knowledge of the menu to simple but increasingly rare gestures, such as offering to take coats. I would have rated service higher if we hadn't had to wait - and wait - for the check one visit, on what had been a shorthanded, busy night. Until then, though, servers performed admirably.
The dining room is lined with windows that look out on the property. Until the days grow longer, a fire pit burning outside provides the focal point.
Inside, the focal point is a metal tree sculpture in the center of the dining room, ringed by banquettes. Its twinkling, changing colored lights could be distracting; blue light isn't the most flattering for steak, one companion remarked.
In touches like artist-rendered acrylic that look like cross-sections of minerals, it's clear that buckets of money went into the remodeling of this place. Looking out of place, though, are the dining room's chairs; they're entirely comfortable but have the style of a midgrade hotel.
The lounge looks like the spot where everyone wants to park for the night - at high-top tables, at the bar itself, at modern furniture for lounging by the fireplace. But if you want to have a conversation, the dining room is the better spot, even when the lounge's live music on Thursdays seeps in.
The Nines sells 44 wines by the glass, favoring New World wines. Guests can try them by a 2-ounce pour, or commit to 5 ounces, carafes and bottles.
Like the dinner plates, the wines can be explored in flights. All together, it makes the Nines itself a spot worth exploring.
Carol Deptolla dines anonymously with food and drink paid for by the Journal Sentinel. To sign up for the Journal Sentinel's weekly food and dining newsletter, visit www.jsonline.com/newsletters.
Contact Carol Deptolla at (414) 224-2841 or at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Listen to dining critic Carol Deptolla's At the Table reports on WTMJ-AM (620) at 8:22 a.m. and 3:40 p.m. Fridays, and at 7:20 a.m. Sunday.
12400 N. Ville du Parc, Mequon
(262) 518-0129
*** (very good)
Food: ***
Service: ***
Ambience: ***
Fare: Contemporary American
Atmosphere: Polished but relaxed
Hours: Kitchen open 5-9 p.m. Tuesday-Thursday, 5-10 p.m. Friday-Saturday, 10:30 a.m.-2 p.m. Sunday; the bar is open later
Prices: Entrées, $19-$31; can be ordered as small plates, $9-$15, and small-plate flights, $27-$33
Parking: Adjacent lot; valet Thursday-Sunday, $4 for public
Wheelchair access: Yes, at entry (via elevator) and restrooms
Payment: MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover
Of special note: Sunday brunch buffet; 44 wines by the glass; takeout; fireplace in lounge; children's menu, high chairs and booster seats, and 4,000-square-foot Playdium game room for children; private room for up to 20, event space for 10 to 500; live entertainment in lounge Thursdays, moving outdoors in summer; free Wi-Fi; no-smoking warm-weather patio
Reservations: Recommended Thursday to Sunday
Noise level: Comfortable in dining room

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The first instrument I (attempted) to learn was the violin. I loved the sound and it stirred up some pretty intense emotions in my ten year old self. Mistakenly I thought I could produce those strong emotive sounds. What would become my first failure of many, I quit after a few months of putting my family through those screeching cat impersonations.
So that brings us now to today. Quite spur of the moment I've decided to give it another go. While in Japan, a lot of people use Craigslist to find bargains (especially Indian people, go figure), in Australia it is Gumtree that a lot of people use. I guess it's that Eucalyptus-evoking name that draws us to it (even though it's origin in British).
From listening to a few YouTube videos I thought the Yamaha SV130 sounded the best, and it just so happened someone in Tasmania had one for sale. I trusted the seller and thankfully it arrived without any problems. I chose an electric violin so I could practise silently, but I'm surprised the unplugged volume is louder than a guitar. Another plus is if I can record it much easier, and it has a built-in reverb. Both acoustically and through headphones the tone is real nice. It comes in quite a few colours but I think this sparkly red is the best.
Tuning it was so different to a guitar! I turned the pegs and they would NOT stop slipping. I followed this. Gotta love YouTube. I wish it existed when I was learning guitar too. From the library I also borrowed out "Violin for Dummies" so I'm on my way!
Now I think knowing the guitar has helped me with music theory, intervals and so on. My thinking to produce those lovely sounds I desire is that I need to work on bowing correctly, getting my intonation down, and chasing that elusive vibrato. I prefer to pitch by ear so I'm not using dots or tape to mark first position. With my iPhone I've downloaded Cleartune and Tonal Energy Tuner. The latter is particularly useful in that it can record the playing and analyse that the intonation is correct. This looks really useful in quickly finding notes in guitar solos, so double yeah! Another similar app I have tried is Syaku8. It's a very small PC program, but I've managed to use it on a Mac if you are running Wine.
So why am I posting this on my blog? My excuse is the violin is Japanese and Syaku8 was originally scripted by 日本人. In reality I'm posting this the day I got it, and a blog is pretty handy to document when I started this fool's errand. I've been practising every day, so I may even surprise myself!


text: HI LOS ANGELES! What are you doing tonight? Tonight is the opening for SPACE! The Gallery Show – a group art show curated by artist Mike Mitchell at Gallery1988 (West). The event will feature a collection of original artwork at celebrates the past, present and future of man in the universe. The opening is from 7 – 10 pm; for more info you can scope their Facebook page. I wish I was in town to see it myself.


text:
I am a member of an OPC. I have a paper coming up in school about the different views of communion. How does the OPC view communion?
The view of the OPC on communion is as follows:
1. It is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ the night before His death. It came out of His celebration of the Last Supper (the Passover Feast - see Ex. 12:31 - 13:10). But the Lord's Supper was different in that no animal sacrifice should ever again be made since God's Lamb would soon be slain. The Apostle Paul wrote: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). So Christ's commandment is that His people celebrate the Lord's Supper frequently. Some OP churches observe it every three months, some every other month, some every month, and some every week. At first, the apostolic church observed the Lord's Supper daily. But that frequency did not continue. So each church is left to determine how often.
2. The elements are simply bread and wine. Some use fermented wine since the Greek New Testament word for wine means fermented wine. In fact, grape juice could not be kept just grape juice in Bible times. But most OP churches use ordinary grape juice. And ordinary bread is used, though some use unleavened bread (made without yeast) because that was commanded in the Old Testament feast of Unleavened Bread which followed the Passover Feast (see Ex. 13). Reformed churches do not believe that the bread and wine were anything but bread and wine. Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus when the priest pronounces the words, "This is my body" before the altar. This is called "transsubstantiation," meaning that the elements are actually changed into the body and blood of Christ. Lutherans also think that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus by "consubstantiation," meaning that, after His resurrection, Jesus' human body and blood took on divine attributes and therefore are in, with and under the communion elements. Neither of these can be found in the Bible. Yet we in the OPC believe that we partake of Christ in the Lord's Supper, not physically, but spiritually. That is, by taking the bread and wine in memory of His death, the very words of Jesus, "Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you," means that we are blessed by the Holy Spirit in our hearts when we take the supper in remembrance of Him. He is there spiritually by the Holy Spirit whom He sent to the church on Pentecost to take His place on earth while He lives and reigns in heaven.
3. The spiritual significance of the Lord's Supper is that it is a sign, a seal and a means of grace to those who worthily partake. As a sign, it signifies Christ's death for us on the cross. As a seal, it binds us to Christ as our Savior, just as a body is joined to its head, a bride to her bridegroom. This union is also sealed in baptism. But in baptism, only once because it speaks about the New Birth (John 3:3-8). But in the Lord's Supper we reaffirm our union with Christ every time we take the bread and wine. That's why it is also called communion. Jesus celebrated it with His disciples. And the disciples celebrated it with each other. So Communion has a vertical dimension (with Jesus in heaven) and a horizontal dimension (with each other on earth). It's a seal of our union with Him and each other! As a means of grace, partaking of the bread and wine in remembrance of Him is food for our souls. We "grow in grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18).
4. Who may partake of the Lord's Supper? Only those who believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord and strive to live obedient lives as His disciples. The Lord's Supper gives opportunity to examine our hearts to be sure we are living godly lives and are repentant of our sins (1 Cor. 11:27-32; 2 Cor. 13:5). It is also the practice of the OPC that small children should not take the Lord's Supper until they are old enough to become "communicant members" of the church. This is not to say that little children cannot believe in Christ. The Lord's Supper is a means of grace, but that doesn't mean that we are saved by partaking any more than that we are saved by baptism. But, when one joins the church as an adult, he or she must be close to being adults. A covenant child is a member of the church because his or her parents are Christians. But when one takes vows in joining the church, he or she is on his or her own. That requires some spiritual maturity. It is my personal belief that 1 Corinthians 11:29 sums it up nicely. "Not discerning the Lord's body..." is a sin to one who partakes unworthily. That means that he or she looks at that bread and wine just as something to eat and drink. If the Lord's Supper were a lunch, there'd need to be more! If a little child should take the bread and demand butter on it, or take the cup and ask for some more punch, we would smile. Just the way little children think! But if an adult would talk that way it would be the height of wickedness! Actually, Paul said that some people were feasting and drinking wine, even becoming drunk. And God had punished these people with sickness and death! (verse 30). So one needs to be mentally grown up enough to understand that the broken bread points to Jesus' broken body, and the wine to His shed blooda very solemn connection. One needs to be old enough to understand these things. In fact, being a faithful follower of Christ takes some maturing. And the Lord's Supper "says" we are faithful followers of Jesus. If we're not, taking it is a lie. And God punishes people who take their vows lightly.
I hope that this gives you something that will help you write a good paper.
"Questions and Answers" is a weekly feature of the OPC website. The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an "official" position of the Church, especially in areas where the Standards of the Church (the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms) are silent.
The questions come from individuals like yourself. If you have questions about biblical and theological matters, you are invited to send them by e-mail by using the "Pose a Question" link on the OPC home page or by clicking here.
At least one new question is posted each week, so there should always be something new here for you to read. (For those people who would like to look at previous questions and answers, they will continue to be available as well.)
The purpose of the OPC website's "Questions and Answers" is to respond to biblical and theological questions. Matters of church discipline, disputes, or debates go beyond the scope of our work. We recommend that you present your concerns in these areas to the appropriate judicatory. In most cases this will be to a local pastor, elder, or session. We do not want the website to replace personal involvement in, or commitment to, the local, visible church.
While we will respond to every serious questioner, we are not bound to give a substantive answer to every question, should we deem the question to be beyond the scope of our purpose or our own ability to answer.
You will receive an answer by e-mail. Please be patient as many of our respondents are busy pastors. The response to your question may take up to two (2) weeks. Some of the questions submitted will be chosen to be posted here, along with the corresponding answers.
Note that the "Questions and Answers" posted on the site have been editedall personal references are removed, Scripture references or from some source may be added, and sometimes portions are expandedto make the questions and answers more useful to a larger audience.
|© 2020 The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Chaplains and Military Personnel