Mid-Atlantic Service & Supply Corporation, B-281028.2,

B-281028.2 Dec 29, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency failed to give sufficient credit in best value determination to protester's allegedly superior technical proposal and offer of longer-than-required warranty coverage period is denied where solicitation provided for technical evaluation on a pass/fail basis and. Although warranty was a separate evaluation factor equal in weight to price and past performance. The agency reasonably determined that protester's longer warranty coverage was not worth the higher price (47.7 percent higher) of its proposal. Mid-Atlantic argues that the award to CHB was improper because (1) the agency failed to make a best value determination consistent with the RFP and (2) the awardee cannot meet certain specifications which allegedly are impossible to meet. View Decision Matter of: Mid-Atlantic Service & Supply Corporation File: B-281028.2 Date: December 29, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Mid-Atlantic Service & Supply Corporation protests the award of a fixed-unit-price, indefinite-quantity contract to CHB Industries, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. M/OP-98-1668, issued by the Agency for International Development (AID) for installation of security/safety window film in the AID-occupied portions of the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. Mid-Atlantic argues that the award to CHB was improper because (1) the agency failed to make a best value determination consistent with the RFP and (2) the awardee cannot meet certain specifications which allegedly are impossible to meet. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for award to the responsible and responsive offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the government after consideration of past performance, price, and warranty coverage. RFP Sec. M.2 at 37. /1/ Of relevance here, the RFP provided that "[i]f an offeror submits an alternate warranty in excess of the required seven year coverage, the Government may take such warranty into consideration when determining best value." RFP Sec. M.4.c at 38. The solicitation further provided that "[t]he Government will determine the responsiveness of an offer on a pass/fail basis. An offer is responsive when it manifests assent to all the terms and conditions of this . . . RFP . . . , which includes the . . . statement of work" (SOW). RFP Sec. M.3 at 37. Four offerors submitted proposals on or before the closing time for receipt of proposals on August 28, 1998. After evaluation, the offerors were ranked in the following order, from best to least value: Offeror Performance Price Warranty CHB Good to excellent $ 95,150 Meets minimum Offeror A Average to good $119,100 Exceeds minimum Mid-Atlantic Good to excellent $140,520 Exceeds minimum Offeror B Excellent $141,840 Meets minimum AID determined that CHB's offer met all technical requirements and offered the best value to the government. Award was made to CHB on September 14, and this protest to our Office followed on September 25. Mid-Atlantic argues that the agency improperly made award on the basis of the low-priced, technically acceptable proposal without regard to (1) the RFP provision for consideration of warranty coverage in the best value determination, (2) the RFP direction that "[t]he contractor shall mount the protective film to the window using the methodology providing the greatest security and longest guarantee," RFP SOW, Sec. C.4 at 5, and (3) oral advice of agency personnel to "offer the best system available." Mid-Atlantic Comments of November 4, 1998, at 2. While recognizing that its price was third low, the protester claims that its higher price resulted from its offer of certain enhancements--i.e., a window film warranty of 12 years rather than the required 7 years and the strongest available caulking for the window film mounting (under the technical adhesive requirements)--which the agency improperly failed to consider in the evaluation; according to the protester, if its enhancements had been considered, its offer would have been determined the most advantageous, even with the price premium. /2/ Source selections officials have the discretion to make price/technical tradeoffs and the extent of such tradeoffs is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency with the evaluation criteria. Best Temporaries, Inc., B-255677.3, May 13, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 308 at 3. Even where a source selection official does not specifically discuss the price/technical tradeoff in the selection decision document, we will not object if the tradeoff is supported by the record. Kendall Auto Auction, Inc., B-252474.3, June 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 386 at 5. Based on our review of the record, we find that the price/technical tradeoff is reasonable and consistent with the RFP.