The Leader Mortgage Company, B-274110.2, May 19, 1997

B-274110.2 May 19, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester was not entitled to award merely because it submitted lowest- priced. Higher-priced offer was consistent with solicitation scoring scheme allocating only 10 percent of evaluation points to price. Protest of solicitation scoring scheme is untimely where scoring scheme was announced in solicitation. Leader argues that it should have received the award because its price was considerably lower than CDSI's. Time- and-materials contract to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be in the best interest of the government. Price was to be scored by dividing the lowest offered price by the offeror's price and multiplying the resulting fraction by the maximum points available (i.e. View Decision Matter of: The Leader Mortgage Company File: B-274110.2 Date: May 19, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Leader Mortgage Company protests the award of a contract to Computer Data Systems, Inc. (CDSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 101-36-96, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for mortgage services. Leader argues that it should have received the award because its price was considerably lower than CDSI's. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the evaluation of proposals on the basis of technical factors, past performance, and price, with award of a fixed-price, time- and-materials contract to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be in the best interest of the government. Technical evaluation factors included corporate experience and management approach; approach to performing the services; organizational qualifications; personnel; and facilities and equipment. Price was to be scored by dividing the lowest offered price by the offeror's price and multiplying the resulting fraction by the maximum points available (i.e., 10). Offerors were advised that the technical factors would be worth 65 percent of the evaluation points available; past performance, 25 percent; and price, 10 percent. The solicitation emphasized that since technical factors and past performance were of greater importance than price, award might be made to other than the lowest-priced offeror. Sixteen firms submitted proposals by the November 5, 1996, closing date. Eleven proposals were included in the competitive range. The agency conducted discussions with each of the 11 firms and requested best and final offers (BAFO). Overall scores on the BAFOs ranged from 61.7 to 82.4; technical scores ranged from 33.4 to 51.7; and prices ranged from $11,660,000 to $71,451,600. CDSI's proposal received both the highest overall and the highest technical scores, and its price ($20,876,200) was third lowest. Leader's overall score of 71.6 was fourth highest. It received the maximum possible score of 25 for past performance (as did 8 of the other 10 competitive range offerors, including CDSI) and the maximum possible score of 10 for its price, which was lowest. Leader's technical score of 36.6 was fourth lowest, however. Among the weaknesses in the protester's proposal noted by the evaluators were Leader's failure to demonstrate a track record of handling portfolios comparable in size and complexity to the requirement here; its failure to demonstrate an understanding of program objectives and approach; its failure to address the implementation of nonloans; and its failure to demonstrate a good understanding of the VA accounting report requirements. The contracting officer determined that CDSI's proposal represented the best value to the government and awarded a contract to CDSI on January 30, 1997. Leader received a written debriefing identifying the weaknesses in its proposal on February 6 and protested to our Office the same day. Leader argues that it should have received the award since it is qualified to perform the services and its price is significantly lower than CDSI's. Leader's allegation that it is entitled to award because it submitted the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal is unfounded. In a negotiated procurement, there is no requirement that award be made on the basis of the lowest price unless the RFP so specifies. Tracor Flight Sys., Inc., B-245132, Dec. 17, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 549 at 4. Agency officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of technical and price evaluation results. Price/technical tradeoffs may be made; the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors. The Pragma Corp., B-255236 et al., Feb. 18, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 124 at 5. Award may be made to an offeror with a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the agency reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher-priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.