Anchorage Enterprises, Inc.

B-261922 Nov 07, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Decision to award to offeror with significantly higher technically scored proposal and slightly higher price was unobjectionable. Anchorage alleges that the Air Force's award decision was based on a flawed evaluation of proposals and was influenced by an improper bias toward the awardee. The solicitation was issued as a competitive 8(a) set-aside for Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) for Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. The RFP stated that technical and price factors would have equal weight in the source selection. The solicitation specifically reserved the agency's right to award the contract to an offeror whose price was not the lowest proposed and stated that the award would be based on the best overall value to the government. View Decision Matter of: Anchorage Enterprises, Inc. File: B-261922 Date: November 7, 1995 Where solicitation provided that technical and price considerations would be balanced to determine the best overall value to the government, and specifically reserved the right to award based on other than the lowest price, decision to award to offeror with significantly higher technically scored proposal and slightly higher price was unobjectionable. Attorneys DECISION Anchorage Enterprises, Inc. (Anchorage) protests an award of contract by the Department of the Air Force to Record and Construction, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F10603-94-R-0003. Anchorage alleges that the Air Force's award decision was based on a flawed evaluation of proposals and was influenced by an improper bias toward the awardee. We deny the protest. The solicitation was issued as a competitive 8(a) set-aside for Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) for Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. The SABER program provides for small-to-medium size maintenance and repair and minor construction projects in support of base civil engineers. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery 12-month contract, with 4 option years. The RFP instructed offerors to submit separate technical and price proposals, and described the manner in which these would be reviewed by evaluation teams. The RFP stated that technical and price factors would have equal weight in the source selection. The solicitation specifically reserved the agency's right to award the contract to an offeror whose price was not the lowest proposed and stated that the award would be based on the best overall value to the government. Six offerors, including Anchorage and Record, submitted initial proposals. The RFP instructed offerors to delete their company name and address from their technical proposals. The contracting officer labeled the six proposals as proposals A through F during the review process. After the initial round of evaluations, written discussion questions were sent to each offeror. None of the offerors' responses to the questions was considered sufficiently compelling to warrant a change in the ratings that had been assigned to the proposals during the initial evaluation. Record's proposal received the second-highest overall technical score, while Anchorage's received the lowest. Anchorage offered the lowest price; Record's was slightly higher. The source selection officials determined that Record offered the best overall value to the government. After receiving approval of Record's eligibility for award from the Small Business Administration, the Air Force awarded the contract to Record. Anchorage protests the Air Force's award decision, arguing that its own proposal should have been selected because it allegedly was technically equivalent to Record's and offered a lower price. [1] An award to an offeror with a higher technically scored proposal and a higher price is unobjectionable, so long as the result is consistent with the evaluation criteria and the agency has determined that the technical difference is sufficiently significant to outweigh the price difference. Calspan Corp., B-258441, Jan. 19, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 28. Here, the record supports the agency's decision to select Record for award as the technically superior offeror, even though it was slightly higher in price. The evaluation documents show that in the 11 technical evaluation areas established in the evaluation scheme, Anchorage's proposal was given the second-highest rating ("meets standards"). Record's proposal received the highest possible rating ("exceptional or exceeds standards") in seven of the areas, and was rated as meeting the standards in the remaining four areas. Record's proposal included a larger work force, exceptional technical support (e.g., computers and software), and better management staff.