Phillips Industries, Inc., B-280645, September 17, 1998

B-280645 Sep 17, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency selection of slightly higher-priced offeror with excellent performance history instead of lower-priced offeror with no performance history is reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme. Where the item was in backlog status. Anticipated demand was high. Agency concluded that the awardee's established excellent record for timely delivery was worth the slightly higher price. The item is a "bait station. The RFP provided: The Government will award a contract . . . to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. Are equal. Price and past performance are the primary evaluation factors. Price and performance factors will be evaluated equally unless a different order of precedence is indicated below: [ ] Performance is of greater importance than price. [ ] Price is of greater importance than performance. View Decision Matter of: Phillips Industries, Inc. File: B-280645 Date: September 17, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Phillips Industries, Inc. protests the Defense Supply Center Richmond's (DSCR) award of a contract for "Combat Quick Kill" insecticide, a commercial item manufactured by Clorox Company, to Amjay Chemicals under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0450-98-R-0989. The item is a "bait station," commonly referred to as a "roach motel." Contracting Officer (CO) Report, Aug. 12, 1998, at 2. Phillips, the low-priced offeror, alleges that DSCR misapplied the evaluation factor for past performance and made an improper tradeoff decision to award the contract to Amjay, the third lowest-priced offeror. We deny the protest. The RFP required delivery of 3,000 packages of this product within 45 days after award. RFP section B, at 2; RFP, DSCR clause 52.211-9G52, at 8. The RFP provided: The Government will award a contract . . . to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: See Section M of the solicitation Technical and past performance, when combined, are equal. RFP, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.212-2, "Evaluation - Commercial Items (Oct. 1997)," at 4. Section M of the RFP contained a DSCR clause, 52.215-9G05,"Automated Best Value Model (Nov 1996)," at 13, which provided that: (a) Award. The award against this solicitation shall be made based on a comparative assessment of offerors' prices and past quality and delivery performance. Price and past performance are the primary evaluation factors. The award may be made to other than the low-priced, technically acceptable responsible offeror. For this award, price and performance factors will be evaluated equally unless a different order of precedence is indicated below: [ ] Performance is of greater importance than price. [ ] Price is of greater importance than performance. For this award, the performance factor considers quality performance and delivery performance to be of equal value unless otherwise indicated below: [ ] Quality performance is of greater importance than delivery performance. [ ] Delivery performance is of greater importance than quality performance. (b) The Automated Best Value Model (ABVM) Score. (1) To evaluate each offeror's past performance, each offeror will be assigned an ABVM score based on the offeror's past performance. . . . The ABVM score . . . is a combination of an offeror's delivery and quality scores. The quality score will be comprised of validated contractor caused product and packaging nonconformances and negative lab tests during the rating period . . . . The delivery score will be comprised of all lines reflected delinquent during the rating period . . . . /1/ Subsection (d) of this clause provided that: The lack of performance history is not grounds for disqualification for award but may cause the offeror to be considered less favorably than an offeror with favorable performance history. Conversely, new offerors may be considered more favorably than scored offerors with poor performance history. The contracting officer also may consider the need to expand the supplier base and the possibility of enhancing future competition when new offerors are present. Finally, subsection (f) stated the following: General Basis for Award. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the terms and conditions of the solicitation and which represents the best value to the Government. In making the best value determination, the Government will make a comparative assessment of the proposals. Where the offeror with the best performance history has not also offered the lowest price, the Government will determine the appropriate trade-off of price for past performance.