Cardinal Scientific, Inc.

B-270309 Feb 12, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's use of adjectival rather than numerical rating system in evaluation of proposals is appropriate and provides a rational basis for source selection. Agency's price realism evaluation is unobjectionable where it is based on cost and price information submitted by the offerors which reasonably supports conclusion that offerors' proposed prices are realistic. The RFP was issued on June 2. The units are designed as portable. The RFP identified the darkroom by its national stock number (NSN 6525-01-369-7178) and listed 22 salient characteristics which units were required to meet. Offerors also were instructed to complete a checklist corresponding to the salient characteristics. Identifying for each characteristic whether the item was compliant. View Decision Matter of: Cardinal Scientific, Inc. File: B-270309 Date: February 12, 1996 Agency's use of adjectival rather than numerical rating system in evaluation of proposals is appropriate and provides a rational basis for source selection. In award of a firm, fixed-price contract, agency's price realism evaluation is unobjectionable where it is based on cost and price information submitted by the offerors which reasonably supports conclusion that offerors' proposed prices are realistic. Where corporate experience/past performance evaluation criterion did not restrict offerors' submission of information concerning production of item identical to that solicited, agency properly evaluated as acceptable, similar experience of offeror which had not previously produced the identical item. Attorneys DECISION Cardinal Scientific, Inc. (CSI) protests the award of a contract to Defiance Electronics Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO200-95-R-8084, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for portable x-ray darkrooms. CSI contends that the RFP contained defective instructions and evaluation factors and challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on June 2, 1995, for a basic quantity of 202 portable x-ray darkrooms with an option for an additional 202 units. The units are designed as portable, light weight, rapidly assembled/disassembled darkrooms that provide a light-free environment for the processing of medical x-ray film within a modular, portable tent. The complete ensemble fits into a carrying case and includes a tubular aluminum frame with covers, door flaps, safety light, and fan. The RFP called for the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. The RFP identified the darkroom by its national stock number (NSN 6525-01-369-7178) and listed 22 salient characteristics which units were required to meet. The RFP instructed offerors to describe the item offered and how it failed to meet, met, or exceeded the specified salient characteristics. Offerors also were instructed to complete a checklist corresponding to the salient characteristics, identifying for each characteristic whether the item was compliant, non-compliant, or represented an alternate proposal. Pricing information was to be provided in a separate business proposal. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and three factors (listed in descending order of importance): technical approach, management approach, and corporate experience/past performance. Technical factors were more important than price, but the RFP advised that as proposals became more equal in technical merit, price became more important. While 30 potential offerors were solicited, only CSI and Defiance submitted proposals. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) reviewed the proposals, conducted discussions with the offerors, and obtained limited cost and pricing information from both. At the close of negotiations, the agency requested best and final offers (BAFO) from both offerors. The TEP evaluated the revised proposals and found both proposals to be acceptable overall. CSI had three strong points under management approach and past performance while Defiance had one strong point under management approach. Defiance's BAFO was $894,658, approximately half as much as CSI's BAFO. The contracting officer reviewed the technical and price evaluations and concluded that Defiance's proposal represented the best value to the government. She recognized that CSI's proposal contained more strong points than did Defiance's proposal and that technical considerations were more important than price. She concluded that CSI's technical advantages did not greatly exceed the technical advantages in Defiance's proposal and did not warrant the payment of the significant price premium associated with CSI's proposal; accordingly, she recommended that the source selection authority (SSA) select Defiance for award. The SSA approved the contracting officer's recommendation and, on October 11, DLA awarded Defiance the contract.