Federal Computer International Corporation, B-276885, July

B-276885 Jul 29, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was silent as to the actual calculation method which would be utilized to evaluate prices. Protest that agency performed an improper evaluation is denied where: (1) the basis for the evaluation challenge. Was apparent from the solicitation but not challenged prior to the solicitation's closing time. That the agency's price evaluation was unreasonable. FCIC should have been selected because it submitted the lowest quote. This requirement was initially issued on December 31. Which were ranked as equal factors. Firms responding to the RFQ were required to complete and submit a past performance questionnaire (indicating three recent contract references for similar work) and the solicitation's "pricing table. View Decision Matter of: Federal Computer International Corporation File: B-276885 Date: July 29, 1997 Where solicitation contained general statement regarding price evaluation, but was silent as to the actual calculation method which would be utilized to evaluate prices, protest that agency performed an improper evaluation is denied where: (1) the basis for the evaluation challenge--the protester's interpretation of an ambiguous solicitation--was apparent from the solicitation but not challenged prior to the solicitation's closing time; and (2) except for mere disagreement, the protester has not shown-- and the record does not suggest--that the agency's price evaluation was unreasonable. Attorneys DECISION Federal Computer International Corporation (FCIC) protests the selection of Technical Specialties, Inc. (TSI) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP4700-97-Q-0001, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for computer maintenance at various DLA sites in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. FCIC contends that the agency failed to adhere to the RFQ's pricing evaluation criteria, and that under a proper evaluation, FCIC should have been selected because it submitted the lowest quote. We deny the protest. This requirement was initially issued on December 31, 1996, as a request for proposals; on January 23, 1997, DLA converted the solicitation to a small purchase RFQ, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 13. As amended, the RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price, time-and-materials contract for a performance period not to exceed either a maximum funding ceiling of $50,000 or 1 year, whichever occurred earlier. The RFQ stated that award would be made to the firm submitting the technically acceptable quotation offering the best value to the government, based on a "comparative assessment" of past performance and price, which were ranked as equal factors. Firms responding to the RFQ were required to complete and submit a past performance questionnaire (indicating three recent contract references for similar work) and the solicitation's "pricing table," which required separate unit prices for the following five items: (1) "labor rate per hour"; (2) "minimum per call charge (if any)"; (3) "travel costs (if any)"; (4) "material handling charge (if any)"; and (5) "other costs (if any)." The RFQ stated that "[a]ll [prices] indicated on the Pricing Table will be evaluated and compared among offerors." The RFQ also included a prohibition which precluded quoters from submitting a "minimum per call charge" that was higher than the quoted "labor rate per hour." By the March 18 closing date, 12 quotations were received; after evaluating each firm's past performance, DLA performed the following price evaluation. First, the agency multiplied each quoter's "minimum per call charge" by the RFQ's corresponding estimate (240 calls). Next, DLA multiplied each quoter's "labor rate per hour" by the RFQ's corresponding labor hour estimate (323 hours). DLA then selected the higher of these two prices, and added this figure to the sum of each quoter's remaining three pricing schedule items to determine each quoter's overall price. Eight quoters, including TSI and FCIC, received past performance ratings of "outstanding"; of these eight, TSI's price was lowest and FCIC's was second lowest. On April 21, DLA selected TSI as offering the best value to the government. FCIC contends that DLA performed an improper pricing evaluation. FCIC argues that the RFQ's statement that "[a]ll prices included on the Pricing Table will be evaluated" required the agency to include both the "minimum per call charge" and the "labor rate per hour" in its overall pricing calculation.