Best Foam Fabricators, Inc.

B-275436 Feb 20, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that evaluation method provided for under Blue Ribbon Program (BRP) should not have been applied in lieu of Performance-Price Trade-Off method. That award to Blue Ribbon Contractor at higher evaluated price therefore was improper. Is denied where record shows that items were urgently needed to meet essential mission requirements. Which is one of the circumstances under which the BRP may be invoked. Was restricted to qualified sources. The RFP provided that award was to be based on the best value to the government. Recognizes that responsible contractors have varying degrees of quality and delivery performance. That award to the lowest evaluated price offeror is not always in the best interest of the government. View Decision Matter of: Best Foam Fabricators, Inc. File: B-275436 Date: February 20, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Best Foam Fabricators, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Engineered Fabrics Corporation (EFC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09603-96-R-20365, issued by the Department of the Air Force for 180 foam block assemblies for the F-15 aircraft main fuel tank. We deny the protest. The RFP (issued May 29, 1996) contemplated award of a fixed-price contract, was restricted to qualified sources, and provided for the addition of a 10-percent evaluation factor to all offers other than those of small disadvantaged businesses (SDB). See Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Sec. 252.219-7006. The RFP provided that award was to be based on the best value to the government, and that the Performance- Price Trade-Off (PPT) technique for determining best value would be applied as follows: all technically acceptable offers would be ranked by evaluated price and assigned a performance risk rating (low, moderate or high). If the low technically acceptable offer also received a low performance risk rating, it would be deemed the best value; if the low acceptable offer received a moderate or high risk rating, the source selection authority would "use good business judgment in making the best value award decision." The RFP also contained Air Force Materiel Command Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFMCFARS) Sec. 5352.215-9003, The AFMC Blue Ribbon Program, and Sec. 5352.215-9004, The AFMC Blue Ribbon Program-Evaluation Factors for Award. The Blue Ribbon Program (BRP), which applies to negotiated spare parts acquisitions such as this one, recognizes that responsible contractors have varying degrees of quality and delivery performance, and that award to the lowest evaluated price offeror is not always in the best interest of the government. The BRP allows contractors to apply for Blue Ribbon Contractor (BRC) status, which involves examination of the contractor's past quality and delivery performance. If a contractor is designated a BRC prior to award, the contracting officer may consider BRC status in the award decision. AFMCFARS Sec. 5315.605-90, 5352.215-9003, and 5352.215-9004. A price premium of up to 10 percent (above a nonBRC's price) may be paid (AFMCFARS Sec. 5315.605-90(h)(6)) based on certain considerations, including: "A need for the item(s) to be delivered within the time constraints or quality parameters stated in the solicitation, to meet essential mission requirements." AFMCFARS Sec. 5352.215-9004(b). Best Foam and EFC were the only qualified offerors to submit proposals, both of which were found acceptable. EFC's offered unit price was low at $3,550 ($639,000 total), and Best Foam's was $3,700 ($666,000). However, because Best Foam is an SDB, a 10-percent evaluation factor was added to EFC's price, increasing it to $702,900, and leaving Best Foam's evaluated price low. However, the information gathered by the agency for the performance risk assessment (Best Foam did not submit any of the required performance information) revealed a current workload of three contracts, two of which were delinquent, and three contracts over the previous 12 months (one of which was for a foam product), all of which were delinquent (by 200, 6, and 82 days). The agency was advised that two delinquencies were due to mishandling of material in the manufacture of life vests and life preservers, which did not pass quality assurance inspection; another was due to a change in vendors after submission of first articles, which necessitated a new first article and delayed production; and another was due to production scheduling problems. Further, the agency was advised that an April 1995 pre-award survey of Best Foam resulted in a "no-award" recommendation due to cash-flow problems--a $150,000 monthly shortfall and excessive liabilities, including a $5 million loan.