Robertson Leasing Corporation, B-279756; B-279756.2, July 17,

Robertson Leasing Corporation, B-279756; B-279756.2, July 17, BNUMBER: B-279756; B-279756.2 DATE: July 17, 1998 TITLE: Robertson Leasing Corporation, B-279756; B-279756.2, July 17, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Robertson Leasing Corporation File:B-279756; B-279756.2 Date:July 17, 1998 Donald O. Ferguson, Esq., for the protester. John C. D. Drolla, Jr., Esq., and Richard J. Wieland, Esq., for Gaston & Sheehan Auctioneers, Inc., an intervenor. Joni M. Gibson, Esq., Department of Justice, U.S. Marshals Service, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Award of a contract to the offeror of the higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal was permissible where the request for proposals (RFP) stated that technical evaluation factors were considered more important than price, the awardee's proposal received the greatest number of combined price/technical evaluation points under the RFP's price/technical tradeoff formula, and the contracting officer reasonably determined that the superior technical merit of the awardee's proposal warranted its higher price. DECISION Robertson Leasing Corporation (RLC) protests the United States Marshals Service's award of a contract to Gaston & Sheehan Auctioneers, Inc. (G&S), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. MS-96-R-0017, for services involving vehicles seized by the government. The protester contends it should have been awarded the contract based upon its many years of successful performance of such contracts and because its proposed price was less than the awardee's. Initial Protest at 2; Supplemental Protest at 1. The protester also contends that the agency failed to follow the RFP's evaluation scheme since it could not justify paying a significantly higher price to have the work performed by G&S. Initial Protest at 2, 4. We deny the protests. Issued on April 30, 1996, the RFP solicited offers for towing, storing and disposing of seized/forfeited vehicles in the Southern District, Texas; initial proposals were due by July 5.[1] RFP amend. A001 at 1. The RFP contemplated award of a 1-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract and included options for 4 additional years. RFP section B; RFP sec. L-8. The contractor would be required to tow the vehicles from the point of seizure to a storage facility operated by the contractor. The contractor would also be required to perform maintenance, make repairs, prepare the vehicles for disposal, and dispose of the vehicles by auction or sale to salvage dealers. RFP section C. Tasks would be performed in response to delivery orders, and payment would be made on a fixed-price basis (except for repairs, for which the contractor would be reimbursed costs). RFP sec. I-54, L-8. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be in the best interests of the government, price and other factors considered, and reserved to the government the right to select other than the lowest cost proposal. RFP sec. M-1. The RFP stated that technical factors would be given a weight of 60 percent in the evaluation, while cost would be given a weight of 40 percent. RFP sec. M-2, M-4. The equally weighted technical evaluation factors (each worth 15 evaluation points) were: towing, storage, sales, and work capability. RFP sec. M-3. The RFP further stated, at sec. M-5: Notwithstanding this [40/60] price/technical ratio, for determining whether a premium is warranted, the Government will only award a contract to other than the low acceptable offeror if specific technical advantages can be identified and the Contracting Officer determines that those specific technical advantages are worth the amount of any premium in price. The Contracting Officer has the right to determine whether any differences in technical weighing are "significant" for purposes of evaluating the overall merit of proposals. Seven timely offers were received. After initial proposals were evaluated by the technical evaluation board, and a preliminary price analysis was conducted by the contracting officer, four offers (including RLC's) were included in the competitive range. Agency Report at 3. Discussions were held with all competitive range offerors. Id. at 4. After discussions were concluded and best and final offers (BAFO) evaluated, the contracting officer initially recommended that the contract be awarded to RLC. Id. at 5.