Randolph Engineering Sunglasses, B-280270, August 10, 1998

B-280270 Aug 10, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where protester fails to timely challenge proposed awardee's size status after receiving agency notice of intent to award and contracting officer otherwise had no information prior to award that impeached awardee's certification that it is a small business. Protest of price/technical tradeoff in best value procurement is denied where source selection authority reasonably determined that protester's "excellent" past performance rating did not justify paying a significantly higher price than that proposed by an offeror with a "good" past performance rating. Randolph questions the compliance of AO's proposed product with the RFP specifications and protests the award determination and the agency's acceptance of AO's certification that it is a small business. View Decision Matter of: Randolph Engineering Sunglasses File: B-280270 Date: August 10, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Randolph Engineering Sunglasses protests the award of a contract to AO Sunwear USA, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO200-97-R-5014 for aviation sunglasses issued by the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), Defense Logistics Agency. Randolph questions the compliance of AO's proposed product with the RFP specifications and protests the award determination and the agency's acceptance of AO's certification that it is a small business. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside for the supply of aviation sunglasses made in accordance with military specifications incorporated in the RFP. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery contract for a base year with two 1-year options at an estimated quantity of 40,920 sunglasses for each year. Technical proposals were to be evaluated under two factors: past performance and electronic data interchange (EDI) capability. /1/ Together these factors were considered significantly more important than price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated as most advantageous to the government. The RFP at section 52.212-2, Addendum, also provided that the agency would develop a level of confidence assessment for each offeror which was to reflect the government's "degree of confidence in the offeror's ability to keep promises it has made in its proposal." This rating was to be used in adjusting the evaluation of the offeror's proposal and "could be highly influential in determining which offeror represent[ed] the best overall expected value." The RFP went on to state that the most important factor in the development of the assessment rating would be the offeror's record of past performance and experience. Randolph, AO, and two other offerors submitted proposals by the November 24, 1997 closing date. After evaluating the proposals and conducting discussions, the agency obtained best and final offers from each offeror in the competitive range. /2/ The final ratings and prices for Randolph and AO are as follows: Offeror Past Perform. EDI Confidence Total Est. Quantity Price Level Randolph Excellent Acceptable High $1,273,021 AO Good Acceptable High $ 913,334 Offeror C Good Acceptable Moderate $ 979,215 In making his award determination, the contracting officer, as source selection authority, considered Randolph's higher past performance rating and the price differential between AO and Randolph. Based on the fact that Randolph's price was approximately 40 percent higher than AO's price, the contracting officer reasoned that "the price differential is significant and does not warrant making award to Randolph Engineering based on a marginally superior rating for past performance." Source Selection Decision Document. He therefore determined that AO's proposal represented the best value to the government. The contracting officer notified Randolph of his intent to award the contract to AO on May 21, 1998, in order to provide it an opportunity to challenge AO's size status. In the absence of any challenges, the contracting officer awarded AO the contract on May 28. This protest followed. After initially staying performance of the contract, the agency determined to override the stay based on the best interest of the government. Randolph first challenges AO's status as a small business based upon a 1993 ruling by the Small Business Administration (SBA) that AO, then operating under a different name, was considered other than small due to its affiliation with a large business. The Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(b)(6) (1994), gives the SBA, not our Office, the conclusive authority to determine matters of small business size status for federal procurements. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.5(b)(1) (1998); Survice Eng'g Co., B-235958, July 20, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 71 at 2.