USA Electronics

B-275389 Feb 14, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme. Where there was a low inventory of the solicited item and the agency reasonably concluded that the awardee's better performance record indicated a lower delivery risk. Which were equally weighted. Award was to be made to the offeror with the lowest price and best past performance score unless the offeror with the best performance history did not offer the lowest price. Which was to be calculated for each DSCR vendor on a monthly basis. Preferably before the next monthly scores were posted. Vendors wanting to challenge their scores were encouraged to do so in a timely manner because award decisions would be based on the posted ABVM scores. View Decision Matter of: USA Electronics File: B-275389 Date: February 14, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION USA Electronics protests the award of a contract to Revere Electric Supply Co. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0430-96-R-2603, issued by the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Defense Logistics Agency, for up to 2,000 power inverters. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on August 6, 1996, contemplated a best value award based upon a comparative assessment of prices and past performance, which were equally weighted. Award was to be made to the offeror with the lowest price and best past performance score unless the offeror with the best performance history did not offer the lowest price, in which case the government would determine the appropriate tradeoff of price for past performance. Among other things, the RFP stated that delivery schedule/inventory status and historical delivery/quality problems could affect the tradeoff determination. The RFP included a clause advising offerors that past performance would be evaluated based upon an automated best value model (ABVM) score, which was to be calculated for each DSCR vendor on a monthly basis. The clause stated that the monthly ABVM score would be made available to each vendor on the electronic bulletin board (EBB) by the 15th day of the month, and provided that vendors could challenge the score at any time, but preferably before the next monthly scores were posted; vendors wanting to challenge their scores were encouraged to do so in a timely manner because award decisions would be based on the posted ABVM scores. The ABVM score is the average of the vendor's delivery score and quality score. The delivery score is based on the vendor's delivery record during the 12-month period ending 60 days prior to the date the score is posted; items not shipped by the contract delivery date are considered delinquent for purposes of scoring delivery performance. The quality score is determined from validated contractor caused noncomformances during the 12- month period ending 30 days prior to the date of the score is posted. Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP. USA submitted the lowest-priced offer of $352,000, and received a revised ABVM score of 71.3, which was based on a delivery score of 42.6 and a quality score of 100. [1] Revere submitted the next lowest-priced offer of $355,000, with the highest ABVM score of 100 based upon perfect scores for delivery and quality performance. DSCR determined that Revere's proposal represented the best value because its superior past performance, which indicated a lower delivery risk, offset the minimal (less than 1 percent) price difference between USA's and Revere's offers. [2] In making this decision, the agency considered that there were back orders for this item so that timely delivery was of concern. Award was made to Revere on October 16. The record shows that USA first became cognizant of its ABVM score when it was apprised of the award. In response to USA's request, it was provided the basis for this score. USA's protest to our Office followed. In its initial protest, USA challenged its ABVM delivery score, asserting reasons why it should not have been determined delinquent on the delivery orders considered. In its report, the agency revised USA's score, conceding that USA was not delinquent on a delivery order, and rebutted USA's other challenges to the ABVM score. While USA still generally complains about its score, its only specific response to the agency's explanation concerns USA's delinquencies on orders assertedly in excess of the maximum order limitation of the relevant contract; however, USA does not deny its delinquencies on these orders that it accepted. [3] Based on the record, we cannot say that USA's revised ABVM score of 71.3 was unwarranted. [4] USA protests the award selection, arguing that the agency did not adequately consider USA's low price and acceptable delivery record. In a best value procurement, price is not necessarily controlling in determining the offer that represents the best value to the government.