United Terex, Inc., B-275962.2, May 30, 1997

B-275962.2 May 30, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of proposals is denied where evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. UTI alleges that the proposals were misevaluated. The RFP was issued on July 29. It was amended once. The RFP notified offerors that DLA was seeking delivery within 350 days but would evaluate offers of different delivery schedules in accordance with an FSC-specific Delivery Evaluation Factor (DEF). Offerors were advised that the offered price would be adjusted by a formula using the DEF so that shorter-than-required delivery schedules would result in an evaluated price which was lower than the offered price while longer-than-required schedules would result in an evaluated price higher than the offered price. View Decision Matter of: United Terex, Inc. File: B-275962.2 Date: May 30, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION United Terex, Inc. (UTI) protests the award of a contract to Advanced Aerospace Materials Corporation (AAMC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO740-96-R-1702, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for aircraft towbars fabricated from tubing. UTI alleges that the proposals were misevaluated. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on July 29, 1996, for 375 towbars identified as National Stock Number (NSN) 1730-01-101-9061 in Federal Supply Class (FSC) 1730. It was amended once. As amended, the RFP notified offerors that DLA was seeking delivery within 350 days but would evaluate offers of different delivery schedules in accordance with an FSC-specific Delivery Evaluation Factor (DEF). Offerors were advised that the offered price would be adjusted by a formula using the DEF so that shorter-than-required delivery schedules would result in an evaluated price which was lower than the offered price while longer-than-required schedules would result in an evaluated price higher than the offered price. Proposed phased deliveries were to be evaluated using a weighted average. In addition to the DEF adjustment, the RFP advised offerors that award would be made on the basis of the best value to the government as determined in accordance with an Automated Best Value Model (ABVM), as outlined in relevant part in clause M23 as follows: "(a) Award against this solicitation shall be made based on a comparative assessment of offerors' prices, quoted delivery, and past performance (quality and delivery). . . . "(b) Past Performance. (1) On contracts with the Defense Construction Supply Center, each offeror will be evaluated on the basis of its past quality performance over the last 12 month period (excluding the most recent month) and delivery performance over the last 12 calendar months (excluding the most recent 2 month period). The Government will use the following performance indicators: Delivery Delinquencies - Number - Severity Quality - Product nonconformances - Packaging nonconformances - Laboratory tests . . . . . (3) An offeror with no performance history in any FSC procured by the Center will be identified as a new offeror, and will not be scored on performance. . . . [T]he desirability of expanding the supplier base and possible competition enhancement in future procurements will be considered in the source selection decision when new offerors are present. . . . . . (5) By accessing the DCSC Electronic Bid Board (EBB), each offeror will be provided the opportunity to review its negative historical performance data: (i) For instructions on accessing the EBB and for a point of contact (POC) concerning questions/requests for information on data access, refer to DCSC letter, 06 May 94, subject: The DCSC Electronic Bid Board, which was mailed to all DCSC vendors. For technical assistance or questions on the EBB, contact: [contact person list with phone numbers]. (ii) For questions on negative historical performance data, contact the DCSC ABVM Administrator: [contact office address with phone numbers]. (6) When a discrepancy between offeror and Government data occurs, the Government will make every effort to resolve the discrepancy expeditiously. However, the Government may make an award decision despite the existence of an unresolved challenge. The Government is the final authority for resolution of disputed data and its use in the source selection process. . . . . . "(e) General Basis for Award. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the terms and conditions of the solicitation and which represents the best value to the Government. In making the best value determination, the Government will make a comparative assessment of the proposals. Where the offeror with the best performance history has not also offered the lowest price, the Government will determine the appropriate trade-off of price for past performance. The following considerations may affect the trade-off determination: . .