Environmental Tectonics Corporation, B-280573.2, December 1,

B-280573.2 Dec 01, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights For past performance and reasonably made a price/past performance tradeoff resulting in the issuance of a purchase order to a higher-priced vendor with a higher past performance rating where the agency determined that it was worth paying a price premium to a firm with a superior past performance history and a minimal performance risk. Provided that the agency intended to issue a purchase order to the responsible vendor whose quotation was most advantageous to the government. Were pricing. Submitted quotations which were rated as follows: /2/ ETC USA Models Delivery Schedule Acceptable Acceptable Risk Acceptable Acceptable Past Performance High Risk Low Risk ETC's quotation was approximately 46 percent lower than the quotation from USA Models. View Decision Matter of: Environmental Tectonics Corporation File: B-280573.2 Date: December 1, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Environmental Tectonics Corporation (ETC) protests the issuance of a purchase order to USA Models, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N61339-98-Q-2010, issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD), Department of the Navy, for acrylic replacement windows for hypobaric low pressure chambers. /1/ ETC challenges the agency's evaluation of its past performance and the agency's decision to issue a purchase order to a higher-priced vendor. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued in April 1998 as a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items, provided that the agency intended to issue a purchase order to the responsible vendor whose quotation was most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The RFQ provided that the best value award factors, in descending order of importance, were pricing, delivery schedule, risk, and past performance. Combined synopsis/solicitation, Apr. 8, 1998; CO Statement at 1. The RFQ stated that simplified acquisition procedures applied to this procurement. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13. Three firms, including ETC and USA Models, submitted quotations which were rated as follows: /2/ ETC USA Models Delivery Schedule Acceptable Acceptable Risk Acceptable Acceptable Past Performance High Risk Low Risk ETC's quotation was approximately 46 percent lower than the quotation from USA Models. SSD at 2. With respect to past performance, for ETC, the agency checked the firm's performance under eight contracts for various training equipment. Three contracts were with the British government. The British references (a contracting director and a technical person) reported that ETC's performance under a contract for a fire service trainer had deficiencies which took the firm a long time to correct; ETC's performance under a contract for a maintenance trainer had delivery delays; and ETC's performance under a contract for a critical design review for a human-carrying centrifuge had delivery delays and, over the objections of the British government, ETC ordered long lead-time items prior to design approval. The British references further reported that [deleted]. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), July 20, 1998. In addition, the British references reported [deleted]; the British references reported that they [deleted]. Id.; see also Memo to the File, July 20, 1998. Another contract (the one listed by ETC in its quotation as a past performance reference) was for two unique high altitude chambers for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA reference (the contracting officer), noting that "ETC had very good people and a very good product," reported that ETC had delayed delivery of the product and was "slow in delivering," but eventually had resolved technical and software problems. Memo to the File, Oct. 1, 1998; PPQ, July 21, 1998. Finally, NAWCTSD had a contract with ETC to provide a centrifuge-based flight environment trainer (CFET). The agency reported late, unacceptable delivery by ETC; agency acceptance of the trainer as nonconforming; and difficulty in engaging in discussions with ETC to settle a substantial monetary claim filed by the firm under the CFET contract. PPQ, Aug. 13, 1998. /3/ For USA Models, the agency checked the firm's performance under four contracts. /4/ The reference for a contract for a prototype of a smoke control model to be used as a teaching tool reported that USA Models was ahead of schedule and was an outstanding performer, delivering the highest quality product. PPQ, Aug. 5, 1998. The reference for an acrylic windows contract reported timely and very good performance by USA Models. PPQ, Aug. 5, 1998. The reference for a contract for plastic acrylic models of rockets and mines reported early delivery by USA Models, with the firm doing extra work under the contract. PPQ, Aug. 3, 1998.