Pressure Technology, Inc.

B-265793 Dec 29, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract award for energy pressure vessels, contending that EPA: (1) failed to conduct meaningful discussions; (2) improperly evaluated its technical proposal using an undisclosed evaluation criterion; and (3) made an unreasonable cost-technical tradeoff decision when it selected the awardee's technically superior high bid. GAO held that EPA: (1) held meaningful discussions with the protester regarding its bid weaknesses; (2) did not downgrade the protester's bid based on unstated evaluation criteria; and (3) properly made award to the technically superior bidder, since its bid represented the best value to the government. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: Pressure Technology, Inc. File: B-265793 Date: December 29, 1995 Agency conducted meaningful discussions by apprising the protester of the significant evaluated weaknesses in its technically acceptable proposal; agency is not obligated to discuss every aspect of a technically acceptable proposal that receives less than the maximum score. Protest that agency improperly applied unstated evaluation criterion by considering offerors' availability of key personnel is denied where proposal was not downgraded in this regard. Agency reasonably concluded that award should be made to the technically superior offeror in a best value procurement, notwithstanding the cost premium involved, where the solicitation stated that technical considerations were more important than cost and awardee's proposal was considered technically superior to a less costly proposal. Attorneys DECISION Pressure Technology, Inc. (PTI) protests the award of a contract to EDO Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. C500071T1, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for improved specific energy pressure vessels for hybrid vehicle applications. PTI contends that the EPA conducted inadequate discussions and misevaluated PTI's proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on December 9, 1994, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base year, with a 1-year option. Offerors were instructed to submit separate technical and cost proposals. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the RFP would be the most advantageous to the government, cost and other factors considered. Cost was of lesser importance than technical, but the RFP stated that "[a]s proposals become more equal in their technical merit, the evaluated cost or price becomes more important." The second most important technical factor was "corporate capability," which included key personnel experience as one of its subfactors. Four offerors submitted initial proposals. After evaluation, three of the four proposals were included in the competitive range. EDO's technical proposal was ranked first with an overall excellent rating and PTI's was ranked second with an acceptable rating. On April 5, the EPA conducted discussions with each offeror, posing written questions concerning the weaknesses in each offeror's proposal. The EPA received revised proposals on April 18. The agency then conducted a detailed evaluation of cost proposals and held oral discussions on cost issues. The EPA received best and final offers (BAFO) on June 9. PTI's BAFO received 73 points out of a possible total of 100 points, and its total cost (with options) was $158,166. EDO's BAFO received a technical score of 94 points and its total cost was $287,677. The agency determined that EDO's proposal offered the best value to the government and made award to that company on August 7. The protester first argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. PTI argues that the EPA downgraded its BAFO based on weaknesses which should have been apparent in its initial proposal, but which were not pointed out to PTI during discussions. As a result, PTI argues, it was improperly denied the opportunity to cure these weaknesses. Contracting officers must balance a number of competing interests in selecting matters for discussion based on the facts of each acquisition. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.610; Matrix Int'l Logistics, Inc., B-249285.2, Dec. 30, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 452. They must point out weaknesses that, unless corrected, would prevent an offeror from having a reasonable chance for award. Department of the Navy--Recon., B-250158.4, May 28, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 422. On the other hand, agencies are admonished by the FAR to protect the integrity of the procurement process by balancing the need for meaningful discussions against actions that result in technical leveling (FAR Sec. 15.610(d)), technical transfusion (FAR Sec. 15.610(e)(1)), or auction (FAR Sec. 15.610(e)(2)). Thus, agencies are not required to afford offerors all-encompassing discussions.