Hughes Georgia, Inc.

B-272526 Oct 21, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly failed to perform technical evaluation is denied where the only stated evaluation criteria were price and past performance risk. Protest that agency improperly referred agency determination of small business offeror's lack of production capability to Small Business Administration for consideration under certificate of competency procedures is denied where inadequate production capability was the basis of the agency's nonresponsibility determination and was not part of the technical evaluation. Agency reasonably concluded that awardee's prices were reasonable based on comparison of competitive offers. In procurement where price is more important than past performance risk. View Decision Matter of: Hughes Georgia, Inc. File: B-272526 Date: October 21, 1996 Protest that agency improperly failed to perform technical evaluation is denied where the only stated evaluation criteria were price and past performance risk. Protest that agency improperly referred agency determination of small business offeror's lack of production capability to Small Business Administration for consideration under certificate of competency procedures is denied where inadequate production capability was the basis of the agency's nonresponsibility determination and was not part of the technical evaluation. In solicitation for fixed-price contract in which evaluation scheme provided for use of price analysis techniques, agency reasonably concluded that awardee's prices were reasonable based on comparison of competitive offers, prior contracts for the same items, and independent government estimate. In procurement where price is more important than past performance risk, price/technical tradeoff is unobjectionable where agency reasonably concludes that low past performance risk rating is not worth significant price premium (22 percent) and awards to low-price offeror with neutral past performance rating. Attorneys DECISION Hughes Georgia, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Ainslie Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH01-96-R-0020, issued by the U.S. Army Missile Command (MICOM) for TOW missile night sights. Hughes contends that the agency's evaluation and award determination were flawed and that it improperly referred the issue of Ainslie's responsibility to the Small Business Administration (SBA). [1] We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price contract for basic and optional quantities of two types of TOW missile night sights (AN/UAS 12C and AN/UAS 12A sights) plus first articles, related cable assemblies, and basic sight assemblies (BSA). The basic quantities were in support of foreign military sales to four countries, while the cable assemblies and BSAs were for U.S. military spares. The solicitation called for offerors to complete the RFP package (prices, representations, and certifications) and to furnish information on past contracts. MICOM states that it possesses a stable, reliable technical data package (TDP) and for this reason did not require offerors to submit technical proposals. The RFP called out only two evaluation factors: price and past performance risk, with price identified as being "slightly more important" than past performance risk. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government. The RFP stated that the agency reserved the right to award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions or requesting best and final offers. Three offerors, including Ainslie and Hughes, submitted offers by the March 28, 1996, closing date for receipt of proposals. None had any proposal deficiencies. The past performance risk evaluation was based on information submitted by the offerors, and proposals were rated in this respect as "low," "moderate," "high," or, in the absence of relevant performance history, "unknown." A proposal risk analysis group (PRAG) reviewed the offerors' past performance information and contacted the references listed to determine the relevance of each listed contract. From its evaluation, the PRAG found that Hughes and the third offeror had performed relevant contracts (with the same or similar requirements and of comparable dollar value) and concluded that both offerors' proposals should be rated as presenting a "low" risk. Using the same standard, the PRAG found that none of Ainslie's contracts was relevant and thus rated Ainslie's proposal as presenting an "unknown" risk. The RFP provided that an unknown rating would be considered "neutral and acceptable." The price evaluation was based on the aggregate price proposed for all first article, production quantity, and option quantity contract line items.