United Ammunition Container, Inc.

B-275213 Jan 30, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency should have considered offeror's allegedly poor past performance record under other evaluation factors as well is denied since such consideration would have been inconsistent with solicitation evaluation scheme and led to improper exaggeration of the importance of the past performance factor. Is unobjectionable where it is consistent with the evaluation methodology set forth in the solicitation. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and three factors. The technical factor was "overwhelmingly more important" than management and past performance combined and all three factors were considered more important than price. The evaluated price was to be determined by adding the price of the basic quantity. View Decision Matter of: United Ammunition Container, Inc. File: B-275213 Date: January 30, 1997 In solicitation which identifies technical approach, management, and past performance as separate and independent evaluation factors, protest that agency should have considered offeror's allegedly poor past performance record under other evaluation factors as well is denied since such consideration would have been inconsistent with solicitation evaluation scheme and led to improper exaggeration of the importance of the past performance factor. Agency's evaluation of proposed option pricing based on a combination of separate prices for each range under each option, up to the maximum quantities, rather than on a single price representing the maximum quantities, is unobjectionable where it is consistent with the evaluation methodology set forth in the solicitation. Attorneys DECISION United Ammunition Container, Inc. (UAC) protests the award of a contract to Omega Container, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE30-96- R-0020, issued by the Department of the Army for the supply of inner containers for the 120 millimeter mortar. UAC challenges the agency's evaluation of Omega's past performance and its method of evaluating option prices. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a base quantity of 58,782 inner containers with two options for quantities of 11,000 to 80,000 and 16,000 to 115,000 units. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and three factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical, management, and past performance. The technical factor was "overwhelmingly more important" than management and past performance combined and all three factors were considered more important than price. The evaluated price was to be determined by adding the price of the basic quantity, first article testing (FAT), and option quantities. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the government. UAC and Omega were the only two offerors submitting proposals by the August 30, 1996, closing date. Both proposals were considered unacceptable as submitted, but both were placed in the competitive range because each offeror had produced the same or similar items and the agency expected their proposal scores to increase after discussions. After the conduct of discussions and the submission of best and final offers (BAFO), the final technical evaluation was as follows: Offeror Technical Management Past Perf. Total (82) (10) (8) (100) Omega 81 9 3 93 UAC 79.2 10 8 97.2 The slight difference in scores was directly attributable to Omega's low rating under past performance. Taking into consideration the fact that the technical factor was significantly more important, the contracting officer determined that the proposals were essentially technically equal. Omega's evaluated price was found to be lower than UAC's. In the price evaluation, the agency calculated option prices by multiplying the unit price for each range by the maximum quantity in each range and added the results to the FAT and basic quantity prices for each offeror. UAC also submitted an alternate price schedule, which was based on the agency's early exercise of both options and delivery of all option quantities immediately following delivery of the production quantities. The agency did not consider this offer since it took exception to the RFP's stated delivery schedule and because the agency was unable, for funding and other reasons, to exercise the options so soon. Based on its finding of technical equivalency and that Omega's evaluated price was lower than UAC's, the agency awarded the contract to Omega. After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, UAC filed this protest challenging the technical and price evaluations. In its original price evaluation, Omega's evaluated price was lower than UAC's proposed price by more than $500,000 and lower than UAC's alternate price by approximately $75,000.