ValueCAD

B-272936 Nov 07, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Proposals and selection of lowest-priced proposal of the 6 was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria. Evaluators reasonably concluded that the 6 highest-rated proposals were significantly superior to the 5 other proposals in the competitive range. ValueCAD essentially argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to make award to another offeror given that it offered an acceptable level of competence at a lower price. The RFP provided for award based on a price/technical tradeoff to the offeror whose proposal's price/technical relationship was most advantageous to the government. One of which was rejected immediately because it contained no technical proposal. Since the prices of those proposals were also higher than those of several other offerors. View Decision Matter of: ValueCAD File: B-272936 Date: November 7, 1996 Agency's decision to narrow consideration for award to 6 highest-rated, of 11, proposals and selection of lowest-priced proposal of the 6 was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria, which provided for a price/technical tradeoff, where after the evaluation of best and final offers, evaluators reasonably concluded that the 6 highest-rated proposals were significantly superior to the 5 other proposals in the competitive range. Attorneys DECISION ValueCAD protests the award of a contract to Eagle Mapping Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 51-96-023, issued by the Forest Service for conversion and digitizing services. ValueCAD essentially argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to make award to another offeror given that it offered an acceptable level of competence at a lower price. We deny the protest. On May 16, 1996, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed-price requirements contract for conversion and digitizing services to produce digital data for forest resource information and automated cartographic applications. The RFP provided for award based on a price/technical tradeoff to the offeror whose proposal's price/technical relationship was most advantageous to the government, considering past performance, capacity, key personnel, and the offeror's experience, in that order of importance. The RFP stated that under past performance, the agency would consider the offeror's quality control system, the amount of work passed on initial inspection, and turn around time on projects, among other things. Under capacity, the agency would look at the number of employees available for the contract, and the type of equipment and software to be used. The agency also would evaluate the education and experience of key personnel, as well as the company's experience. The agency received 15 proposals, one of which was rejected immediately because it contained no technical proposal. The agency referred the remaining 14 proposals to an evaluation panel. Upon reviewing the results of the evaluation, the agency eliminated the three lowest-rated proposals from the competitive range, since the prices of those proposals were also higher than those of several other offerors. The agency conducted discussions with the remaining 11 offerors, including ValueCAD. The evaluators had found the protester's proposal acceptable in all areas except capacity, and the agency requested that the protester provide more information on its capacity with its best and final offer (BAFO). The 11 offerors submitted BAFOs on June 21. After review of BAFOs, the panel considered ValueCAD's proposal acceptable in all areas, although the proposal received a relatively low technical score. The panel concluded that, overall, the six highest-rated proposals were significantly superior to the remaining five, including the protester's proposal. The panel members advised the contracting officer that they found no significant difference in technical quality among those six proposals and recommended selection of the lowest-priced proposal of the six, the Eagle Mapping proposal, as representing the best value to the government. By letters of July 5, the agency notified the other offerors of its selection of Eagle Mapping. The notice incorrectly stated that price had been the determining factor in the selection of a contractor. ValueCAD, which had submitted the lowest price of any offeror, protested to the agency. The contracting officer advised ValueCAD that the notice of award was incorrect, and that in fact price had become the determinative factor only after the agency concluded, after review of the BAFOs, that the six highest-rated proposals--which did not include ValueCAD's proposal--were technically equal.