Excalibur Systems, Inc.

B-272017 Jul 12, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Although the solicitation provided that an offeror's past quality performance was more important than price in determining the offeror representing the best value to the government. The agency nevertheless could properly award the contract to a lower-priced offeror with no past quality performance history where the solicitation also provided that price alone would be considered in evaluating first-time offerors or offerors for whom current past quality performance information was not available. The RFP stated that the procurement was subject to the Navy's Contractor Evaluation System Red/Yellow/Green (R/Y/G) Program which is used to assist contracting officials in determining the best value to the government. View Decision Matter of: Excalibur Systems, Inc. File: B-272017 Date: July 12, 1996 Although the solicitation provided that an offeror's past quality performance was more important than price in determining the offeror representing the best value to the government, the agency nevertheless could properly award the contract to a lower-priced offeror with no past quality performance history where the solicitation also provided that price alone would be considered in evaluating first-time offerors or offerors for whom current past quality performance information was not available. Attorneys DECISION Excalibur Systems, Inc. (ESI) protests the award of a contract to Condor Engineering, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00163-95-R-0044, issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Department of the Navy, for items for the Sensor System Improvement Program. ESI challenges the award to Condor, a lower-priced offeror. We deny the protest. [1] The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for basic and option quantities. The RFP stated that the procurement was subject to the Navy's Contractor Evaluation System Red/Yellow/Green (R/Y/G) Program which is used to assist contracting officials in determining the best value to the government, price, past quality performance, and other factors considered. Under this program, accumulated contractor quality performance data is used to classify a contractor's performance in terms of the degree of risk to the government of receiving poor quality items. In this regard, an offeror's performance could be classified as either green/low risk, yellow/moderate risk, or red/high risk. First-time offerors or offerors for whom current, up-to-date quality performance history was unavailable are classified as "insufficient data" offerors. The RFP also described the formula for determining the lowest-priced offeror. The RFP included a hypothetical example in which the formula was applied. The RFP stated that although price would be significant in determining the successful offeror, past quality performance on the proposed item, as classified under the R/Y/G program, would be considered "essentially more important." In defining the individual R/Y/G classifications, the RFP provided that a green/low risk rating would be given greater weight or value in the evaluation than a red/high risk or yellow/moderate risk rating, and that a yellow rating would be given less weight or value than a green rating and greater weight or value than a red rating. The RFP further provided that offerors receiving insufficient data classifications "shall be evaluated solely on the basis of price [and that] [p]ast quality performance shall not be a consideration in their evaluation." (Emphasis in original.) ESI, the incumbent contractor, and Condor submitted price proposals. [2] Both offerors received green/low risk past quality performance ratings. For this reason, the agency considered the offerors equal in terms of past quality performance. Since Condor's price was lower than ESI's price (by less than 1 percent), the agency awarded the contract to Condor. ESI challenges the agency's assignment of a green/low risk rating to Condor for its past quality performance. ESI maintains that since Condor has never produced the required items, i.e., it is offering new items, it should have been assigned no more than an insufficient data rating. ESI further maintains that in light of its green/low risk rating for its past quality performance and the de minimis difference between its price and Condor's price, the agency should have awarded the contract to ESI. The agency maintains that ESI was not prejudiced by Condor's green/low risk rating because even if Condor should have received an insufficient data classification, under the terms of the RFP the agency could not penalize Condor for the lack of a quality performance history and could properly make its best value determination based on a comparison of Condor's lower price vis-a-vis ESI's slightly higher price.