Madico, Inc., B-280003, August 12, 1998

B-280003 Aug 12, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency improperly selected higher-priced proposal is denied where the solicitation made technical considerations more important than price and the agency reasonably concluded that the technical superiority of the awardee's proposal warranted payment of the associated price premium. One of the RFP requirements for the fragment retention film was that it "shall exhibit a flame spread index not exceeding 25 and a smoke density index not exceeding 100 when tested in accordance with ASTME-84." /1/ RFP. Stated that there were a total of 958 windows that needed treatment. Mid-Atlantic's offer was for $52. It was proposing the use of ArmorGard 7 mil single ply clear. The contracting officer reviewed the technical evaluator's assessment that Mid-Atlantic's proposal provided greater security protection than Madico's and determined that the proposal submitted by Mid-Atlantic with the SecureVue 400 was worth the additional cost and provided the best value to the government. View Decision Matter of: Madico, Inc. File: B-280003 Date: August 12, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Madico, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Mid-Atlantic Service & Supply Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. MDA946-98-R-3001, issued by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services for the purchase and installation of security glass coverings at the Pentagon. Madico objects to the agency's decision to award to Mid-Atlantic at a price higher than that offered by Madico. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued December 5, 1997, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the purchase and installation of fragment retention film on windows at the Pentagon building and windows at the Child Care Center at the north side of the Pentagon. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of (in descending order of importance) technical capability of the item offered to meet the government requirement, price, and past performance, and that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation would be most advantageous to the government. RFP, Addendum No. 4, Sec. 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items. One of the RFP requirements for the fragment retention film was that it "shall exhibit a flame spread index not exceeding 25 and a smoke density index not exceeding 100 when tested in accordance with ASTME-84." /1/ RFP, Addendum No. 3, Sec. 08850, Fragment Retention Film for Glass Para. 2.2.5. Amendment No. 0001, issued on December 5, 1997, stated that there were a total of 958 windows that needed treatment, 332 of which required category II window film, 7 mils thick or thicker. Four offerors responded to the solicitation. Madico submitted an offer of $42,521.67 and provided an independent test report, as required by the RFP, indicating a flame spread index of 8 for its proposed film. Mid-Atlantic's offer was for $52,944 and its independent test report indicated a flame spread index of 2. In its offer, Mid-Atlantic stated that for Category II film, it was proposing the use of ArmorGard 7 mil single ply clear, and as an alternative at the same price, it proposed a product called SecureVue 400, a 4 mil thick (2) ply product. The contracting officer reviewed the technical evaluator's assessment that Mid-Atlantic's proposal provided greater security protection than Madico's and determined that the proposal submitted by Mid-Atlantic with the SecureVue 400 was worth the additional cost and provided the best value to the government. A contract was awarded to Mid-Atlantic on March 6, 1998. After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, Madico initially filed an agency-level protest that was denied by letter dated April 29. On May 8, Madico filed this protest with our Office. Because Madico did not file this protest with our Office within the time period requiring a stay of performance under the Competition in Contracting Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(d) (1994), a stop work was not issued and Mid-Atlantic has substantially completed performance of the contract. Madico asserts that the agency's decision to award to Mid-Atlantic at a higher price based on a lower flame spread rating was unreasonable. The agency's position is that, in accordance with the solicitation, it made an appropriate technical/price tradeoff and properly awarded the contract to Mid-Atlantic. We see no basis to conclude that the agency's decision to award the contract to Mid-Atlantic was unreasonable. In a negotiated procurement, the government is not required to select the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal unless the RFP so specifies. General Servs. Eng'g Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, l992, 92-1 CPD Para. 44 at 9. Agency officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of technical and price evaluation results.