Dayron

B-265875.2 Jan 11, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracting officer reasonably selected proposal with a higher technical rating and higher evaluated price for award where he reasonably determined that proposal's technical advantages justified the evaluated price premium and the evaluation scheme provided that technical evaluation factors were considered significantly more important than price in selecting the proposal representing the best overall value to the government. Fixed-price contract for basic and option line item quantities to the responsible offeror whose proposal was deemed to represent the best overall value to the government. The technical evaluation factors were comprised of four minimum standards criteria. Which were to be evaluated using adjectival ratings of "unacceptable" or "acceptable. View Decision Matter of: Dayron File: B-265875.2 Date: January 11, 1996 Contracting officer reasonably selected proposal with a higher technical rating and higher evaluated price for award where he reasonably determined that proposal's technical advantages justified the evaluated price premium and the evaluation scheme provided that technical evaluation factors were considered significantly more important than price in selecting the proposal representing the best overall value to the government. Attorneys DECISION Dayron protests the award of a contract to Intellitec, Division of Technical Products Group, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE30-95-R-0008, issued by the United States Army Materiel Command, Department of the Army, for the production of quantities of M139 Volcano Mine Dispensers, mounting kits, maintenance self-testers, and ancillary equipment. Dayron protests the evaluation of its proposal and the contracting officer's price/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for basic and option line item quantities to the responsible offeror whose proposal was deemed to represent the best overall value to the government, technical evaluation factors, performance risk assessment, and price considered. The technical evaluation factors were comprised of four minimum standards criteria, which were to be evaluated using adjectival ratings of "unacceptable" or "acceptable," and three merit rated criteria, which were to be evaluated using adjectival ratings of "unacceptable," "acceptable," or "outstanding." Adjectival ratings were to be supported by narratives. The performance risk assessment, based upon an offeror's and its proposed subcontractor's past performance of related contract efforts as an indicator of the probability of successful contract performance, was to be evaluated using a narrative. Prices were to be evaluated by adding prices for the maximum quantity of basic and option line items. In addition, the RFP provided for a 10-percent evaluation preference for small disadvantaged businesses (SDB), whereby 10 percent would be added to the total price (for evaluation purposes only) of all non-SDBs prior to the source selection decision. Under the RFP, the technical evaluation factors were considered significantly more important than the performance risk assessment which was considered slightly more important than price. In addition, the merit rated criteria were considered significantly more important than the minimum standards criteria. Of the three merit rated criteria, the shipping and storage containers criterion was considered significantly more important than the other two equally weighted criteria. In determining the best overall value to the government, the RFP stated that the agency reserved the right to award to other than the low-priced offeror or to the highest-rated offeror for the technical evaluation factors and the performance risk assessment. Six firms, including Dayron, an SDB, and Intellitec, a non-SDB, submitted initial proposals. The contracting officer included the proposals of Dayron, Intellitec, and three other firms in the competitive range and subsequently conducted discussions with each competitive range offeror. Following discussions, each competitive range offeror submitted a best and final offer (BAFO). For the technical evaluation factors, both Dayron and Intellitec were rated "acceptable" for the minimum standards criteria and for the two equally weighted merit rated criteria; however, for the significantly more important shipping and storage containers merit rated criterion, Intellitec was rated "outstanding," while Dayron was rated "acceptable." Both firms were considered to be low risk in terms of performance. Dayron's price was $36,316,192, and Intellitec's price was $33,532,720. After application of the 10-percent SDB evaluation preference to Intellitec's price, Intellitec's price was evaluated at $36,885,992, $569,800 higher than Dayron's price.