Air Sal Leasing, Inc.

B-265938 Jan 16, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency failure to discuss with the protester the fact that the agency's calculation of the protester's total price based on the unit prices offered was much higher than the protester's own calculation does not warrant overturning the award decision where the protester neither shows how the agency's price computation. Was wrong. Nor alleges that it would have changed its unit prices (the bases for contract payments) had it known the agency's figure. The protester alleges that: (1) the agency's price evaluation was flawed. (3) the agency's price/technical tradeoff was fatally flawed because of errors in both the technical and price evaluations. The RFP stated that evaluated price was a significant selection factor. View Decision Matter of: Air Sal Leasing, Inc. File: B-265938 Date: January 16, 1996 Agency failure to discuss with the protester the fact that the agency's calculation of the protester's total price based on the unit prices offered was much higher than the protester's own calculation does not warrant overturning the award decision where the protester neither shows how the agency's price computation, which appears to be proper under the solicitation's evaluation plan, was wrong, nor alleges that it would have changed its unit prices (the bases for contract payments) had it known the agency's figure. Attorneys DECISION Air Sal Leasing, Inc. protests the United States Department of Agriculture's award of a contract to K&K Aircraft, Inc., pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 01-MX-APHIS-96. The protester alleges that: (1) the agency's price evaluation was flawed; (2) the agency improperly did not discuss with Air Sal the fact that the agency calculated its total price to be approximately 40 percent more than the price Air Sal says it offered; and (3) the agency's price/technical tradeoff was fatally flawed because of errors in both the technical and price evaluations. We deny the protest. Issued on April 7, 1995, by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the RFP requested offers for air transport and dispersal of sterile screwworm flies in various countries in Central America in an effort to eradicate screwworm flies. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price, requirements-type contract for a base period of 1 year with options for 4 additional years. The RFP stated that evaluated price was a significant selection factor, but where proposals' evaluated prices were within 10 percent of each other the government might award the contract to the offeror of the higher-priced, technically superior proposal if the higher price were warranted by the technical superiority. Six offers were received by the July 10 closing date for receipt of initial proposals. After evaluation of proposals, discussions, and receipt of best and final offers, the agency awarded the contract to K&K on August 22. Air Sal filed its protest in our Office on August 31. [1] The protester alleges that the price evaluation erroneously resulted in Air Sal's total price being evaluated at roughly $19 million instead of the $13,749,800 that Air Sal had entered on a "schedule of items" it submitted with its offer. In a related matter, Air Sal asserts that the agency improperly did not discuss with it this approximately 40-percent discrepancy between its evaluated and offered price. The first argument is without merit. In calculating each offer's total evaluated price, the agency followed a formula set forth in the RFP. The RFP required offers to state a unit price (e.g., a basic monthly fee per aircraft) for each line item for the base and option years; no extended line item prices, total performance period prices, or total contract prices were requested. The RFP included critical information such as the number of aircraft needed each month, the location of the required dispersal flights, and estimates of the number of flights that would be required to each location and the total flying time during the contract period. By multiplying each offer's unit prices by the known and estimated quantities set forth in the RFP, the agency computed extended prices for each line item. Thus, even though the RFP labeled the extended prices as "evaluated prices," in reality the agency merely calculated the total price for each line item by doing simple mathematical operations; then, after discounting option year prices to account for the present value of money, the agency summed the extended line item prices to compute each offer's total evaluated price. [2] Notwithstanding the RFP's invitation to offer only unit prices for the base and option periods, Air Sal, on its schedule of items, extended and summed all of its unit prices, discounted the results, and added the discounted amounts to arrive at what it termed its "Total Evaluated Price (discounted)," $13,749,800.