Seedburo Equipment Company, B-278659, February 25, 1998

B-278659 Feb 25, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Where the solicitation's evaluation scheme provided that the combined weight of the technical evaluation factors was significantly more important than price in determining the proposal representing the best value to the government. Higher-priced proposal for award where the record supported the agency's conclusion that this proposal was technically superior to the protester's proposal and that the advantages of the awardee's proposal warranted the payment of a price premium. National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) at the time the RFP was issued would be considered for award. The intent of this procurement was to select a new technology for "official moisture measurement/inspection purposes.". View Decision Matter of: Seedburo Equipment Company File: B-278659 Date: February 25, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Seedburo Equipment Company protests the award of a contract to DICKEY-john Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 54-M-APHIS-97, issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for manual and automated grain moisture meters. Seedburo challenges the agency's price/technical tradeoff resulting in an award to an offeror submitting a higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on May 15, 1997, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price requirements contract for basic and option quantities of manual and automated grain moisture meters. [1] The RFP provided that only those moisture meter models that met all prequalification requirements and had a certificate of conformance under the National Conference of Weights and Measures, National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) at the time the RFP was issued would be considered for award. As stated in section C.1 of the RFP, the intent of this procurement was to select a new technology for "official moisture measurement/inspection purposes." The RFP also explained that it is not feasible to have more than one official moisture meter because the use of "multiple technologies degrades consistency of results even if accuracy is comparable." The agency explains that grain is measured for moisture because, when buying grain based on weight, it is important to know what the moisture content is so that a buyer knows how many nutrients and things other than water are being purchased. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 16. [2] Moisture in grain generally adds no value to the grain as an end-use product. Id. Basically, the price of grain is adjusted to reflect the moisture content. Id. As explained during the hearing, to determine the moisture content of grain, the moisture meter operator pours a grain sample into the instrument and selects the grain type to be analyzed. The grain sample drops into a test cell where weight, temperature, and other properties of the grain are determined; the moisture content is then displayed on the instrument. Tr. at 13-14. By selecting the grain type, the operator in essence selects the calibration or mathematical equation that will be used to convert the raw data results into moisture content for the particular grain type. Tr. at 15. Moisture content is ultimately expressed as a percentage of total weight of the grain sample. Id. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated in two phases. The first phase involved the evaluation of technical proposals. The RFP provided the following technical evaluation factors and related subfactors: (1) technical design (range of applicability; environmental compatibility; and design requirements); (2) quality control, standardization, and check-test processes (adequacy of quality control plan; completeness of standardization error analysis; degree of conformance of production units with USDA regulations based on standardization error analysis and production quality control data; and completeness, effectiveness, and efficiency of check-test processes that assess the instrument's ongoing performance); (3) customer feedback on instrument performance; and (4) past performance (timeliness of delivery and business relations). (After the phase I technical evaluation, the agency determined the competitive range.) The second phase involved physical testing of proposed instruments. The RFP provided that the agency would randomly select 5 of the 15 current users of the offeror's instrument, as previously identified by the offeror, for on-site testing of the instrument at the user's facility. The RFP provided that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government, technical evaluation factors and price considered.