Northwest Management, Inc., B-277503, October 20, 1997

B-277503 Oct 20, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The protester argues that it should have received the purchase order because its quotation represented a better value to the government than Clearwater's. The streams to be surveyed were grouped under three items: Lolo Creek Drainage. Vendors were advised that more than one purchase order might be issued. Vendors were further advised that selection of a contractor (or contractors) would be based on the following criteria. That a narrative response to the criteria was to be submitted with the quotation: qualifications and credentials of personnel who will be assigned to supervise and perform the work. Its price for item No. 1 was $21. Northwest was notified of the selection of Clearwater on July 7 and protested to our Office on July 14. [3] Northwest objects to the award of item No. 1 to Clearwater. View Decision Matter of: Northwest Management, Inc. File: B-277503 Date: October 20, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Northwest Management, Inc. protests the issuance, by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, of a purchase order for stream surveys on the Lolo Creek Drainage in Clearwater National Forest, Idaho to Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. R1-5-97-21. The protester argues that it should have received the purchase order because its quotation represented a better value to the government than Clearwater's. We deny the protest. The RFQ sought a contractor (or contractors) to collect, and compile into a report, stream stability and fish habitat data on streams within the Clearwater National Forest. The streams to be surveyed were grouped under three items: Lolo Creek Drainage, Pete King Creek Drainage, and Canyon Creek Drainage. Vendors were advised that more than one purchase order might be issued. Vendors were further advised that selection of a contractor (or contractors) would be based on the following criteria, and that a narrative response to the criteria was to be submitted with the quotation: qualifications and credentials of personnel who will be assigned to supervise and perform the work; past performance, including ability to produce a final report detailing existing conditions, limiting factors, population statistics, and recommended habitat improvement actions; [1] experience of personnel in the project area or similar geographic areas; and firm's ability to undertake and complete this project on time. The RFQ also indicated that firms' prices would be evaluated. [2] Northwest submitted a quotation totaling $20,996.10 for item No. 1 (Lolo Creek Drainage) only. Clearwater submitted prices for all three items; its price for item No. 1 was $21,023.70 (i.e., $27.60 more than Northwest's). On July 1, the contracting officer notified Clearwater that it had been selected to perform the work under all three item numbers. Northwest was notified of the selection of Clearwater on July 7 and protested to our Office on July 14. [3] Northwest objects to the award of item No. 1 to Clearwater. The protester alleges that the agency failed to consider its quotation because it was for one item only and the agency wished to avoid making multiple awards, despite the fact that the RFQ provided for them. In this regard, the protester states that one of the evaluators told its representative that the contracting officer stated that "he saw no reason to award to more than one contractor." Protester's Comments, Sept. 2, 1997, at 2. In the alternative, the protester argues that the agency lacked a reasonable basis for passing over its quotation in favor of Clearwater's higher- priced one. The contracting officer denies that Northwest's quotation was excluded from consideration because the protester had quoted a price for the item No. 1 work only. The contracting officer explains that the quotation was evaluated--a claim which is supported by the existence of evaluator worksheets assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Northwest's narrative response to the evaluation criteria--but that it was not selected, because, in the contracting officer's judgment, it did not represent the best value to the government. Given the worksheets, we see no reason to question the contracting officer's explanation. Moreover, even if, as the protester alleges, the contracting officer did state, prior to the selection, that he saw no reason to select more than one vendor, we do not think that this statement implies that any vendor not quoting on all three items had been excluded from consideration.