Quality Fabricators, Inc.

Quality Fabricators, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271431; B-271431.3 DATE: June 25, 1996 TITLE: Quality Fabricators, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Quality Fabricators, Inc. File: B-271431; B-271431.3 Date:June 25, 1996 Timothy S. Kerr, Esq., Elliott Reihner Siedzikowski & Egan, for the protester. James J. McCullough, Esq., Joel R. Feidelman, Esq., and Anne B. Perry, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for Tri-Way Industries, Inc., an intervenor. Michael J. Cunningham, Jr., Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive range was reasonable where, based on the evaluation of its past performance, which included late deliveries, quality deficiency reports concerning manufacturing defects, and a refusal or inability to manufacture some of the same items under a previous contract, the agency reasonably concluded that the firm had no reasonable chance for award. DECISION Quality Fabricators, Inc. (QFI) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-96-R-D110, issued by the Department of the Navy for various types of lockers for the Navy's habitability program. QFI also protests the award to Tri-Way Industries, Inc. under the solicitation. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for a base year with 3 option years. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, was most advantageous to the government, considering two factors: past performance and price. The solicitation stated that past performance would be considered significantly more important than price and that the government could award to other than the lowest-priced offeror. The solicitation stated that each offeror should describe its past performance on similar contracts it has held within the last 5 years. The solicitation also provided that the agency could obtain information on past performance from any source and stated that offerors lacking past performance history would receive a "neutral" rating for past performance. Six proposals were submitted, ranging in price from $12,211,065 to $15,994,780.24. QFI's price was the second low, at $12,416,567.28, and Tri-Way's price was third low, at $12,698,624. In assessing past performance, in addition to reviewing information provided in the proposals, agency officials solicited opinions from the Navy's Fleet Technical Support Center (FTSC), which has responsibility for the Navy's habitability program, government quality assurance representatives, and administrative and procuring contracting officers. Agency officials also reviewed quality deficiency reports. The agency assigned one of the following past performance ratings to each of the proposals: "Neutral: No relevant past performance available for evaluation. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor. "Exceptional: Little or no potential exists for disruption of schedule, increases in cost (for cost type contracts) or degradation of performance based on the offeror's past performance. "Satisfactory: Some potential exists for disruption of schedule, increases in cost (for cost type contracts) or degradation of performance based on the offeror's past performance. "Marginal: Significant potential exists for disruption of schedule, increases in cost (for cost type contracts) or degradation of performance based on the offeror's past performance." The agency assigned past performance ratings of marginal to QFI and exceptional to Tri-Way.[1] In rating QFI's past performance, the agency recognized that QFI is a new firm, but gave it credit for the performance of Hampton Roads Metal Systems on previous contracts since, as QFI's proposal explained, QFI will operate in the same facility with the same personnel and management team as Hampton Roads. Using Hampton Roads's performance history as the basis for QFI's rating, the agency found that the firm has had significant delinquent deliveries.