Rotair Industries, Inc., B-276435.2, July 15, 1997

B-276435.2 Jul 15, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency selection of higher-priced vendor with a shorter delivery schedule and better past performance record was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. The RFQ was issued on December 16. Negative delivery and quality performance data to be included in the ABVM score is made available to each vendor by the 15th day of the month on the DSCR electronic bulletin board and the RFQ advised vendors that they could review the performance data and challenge its accuracy if they disagreed with it. Vendors were urged to file challenges to performance data in a timely manner and the RFQ provided instructions on where and to whom challenges should be submitted. Five quotations were submitted by the January 6. View Decision Matter of: Rotair Industries, Inc. File: B-276435.2 Date: July 15, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Rotair Industries, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order by the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Defense Logistics Agency to Aero Components Company (Aero) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO460-97-Q-D651 for a quantity of hoist fittings. Rotair challenges the adequacy of the best value determination which resulted in an award to Aero. We deny the protest. The RFQ was issued on December 16, 1996, to qualified sources for a quantity of 58 hoist fittings identified as National Stock Number 1560-00-932-5539, Federal Supply Class (FSC) 1560. The RFQ provided a delivery schedule calling for delivery "within 90 days ARO [after receipt of order]. If unacceptable provide best possible delivery." The RFQ advised that the best value award decision would be based on a tradeoff between price and past performance, with price and past performance being equally weighted. The RFQ further stated that if the vendor with the best past performance history did not offer the lowest price, the agency would make the appropriate tradeoff of price for past performance, and listed several other considerations such as weapons system application/item criticality, delivery schedule/inventory status, and historical delivery/quality problems, that would be considered by the agency in its tradeoff determination. Past performance would be evaluated in accordance with an automated best value model (ABVM). [1] The ABVM score, assigned by DSCR on a monthly basis to each vendor for a particular FSC, measures delivery performance during the preceding 12 months, excluding the most recent 2-month period, and quality performance during the past 12 months, excluding the most recent month. Negative delivery and quality performance data to be included in the ABVM score is made available to each vendor by the 15th day of the month on the DSCR electronic bulletin board and the RFQ advised vendors that they could review the performance data and challenge its accuracy if they disagreed with it. In this regard, the RFQ stated that "the challenge period for the performance data used to calculate the ABVM score for a particular month ends the day before the new score becomes effective." Moreover, since the posted ABVM scores would be used in making best value award decisions, vendors were urged to file challenges to performance data in a timely manner and the RFQ provided instructions on where and to whom challenges should be submitted. Five quotations were submitted by the January 6, 1997, closing date. Rotair submitted the lowest-priced quotation of $256.55 each with delivery 330 days ARO, but received an ABVM score of 76.4 based on 39 contract line items. Aero submitted the next lowest-priced quotation of $306.00 each, offered delivery 150 days ARO and had the highest ABVM score of 87.4 based on 391 contract line items. In comparing the relative merits of the two quotations, DSCR determined that Aero's higher-priced quotation represented the best value because its past performance as measured by its ABVM score indicated that it was more likely that the government would receive timely delivery, as compared to Rotair's past performance as measured by its lower ABVM score. [2] In making this decision, the agency considered the fact that the item was out of stock and there were numerous backorders waiting to be filled, and concluded that Aero's faster proposed delivery (150 days ARO versus Rotair's 330 days ARO), along with its lower performance risk as represented by its ABVM score offset Aero's slightly higher price when compared to the lower price offered by Rotair. [3] A purchase order was subsequently issued to Aero on January 27, 1997, for 58 units at a total cost of $17,748. Rotair protests that the agency's best value determination was flawed and that the agency improperly selected a significantly higher-priced quotation for award. In a best value procurement, price is not necessarily controlling in determining the offer that represents the best value to the government.