The Production Company, B-281503, February 18, 1999

B-281503 Feb 18, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lower-priced quotation in a best value procurement (where request for quotations stated that price was secondary to the three technical factors combined) is unobjectionable where the contracting officer performed a rational assessment of the competing quotations and reasonably determined that the price premium associated with the protester's higher-rated. Higher-priced quotation was not justified given the acceptable level of technical capability available at the lower price. The protester argues that it should have received the order because its quotation was rated the highest technically. When combined [were] the most important factors for award. Price is secondary.". Vendors were also required to submit with their quotation a videotape containing three 10-minute segments from three different video programs produced by the offeror in the past 5 years. View Decision Matter of: The Production Company File: B-281503 Date: February 18, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Production Company protests the issuance of an order to The A'Hern Group under Social Security Administration request for quotations (RFQ) No. SSA-RFQ- 98-3542, a commercial item acquisition. The protester argues that it should have received the order because its quotation was rated the highest technically. We deny the protest. The RFQ requested quotations for the production of a videotape explaining the Social Security Administration's policy on adjudicating disability claims involving neurological laboratory tests. The RFQ basically advised that the order would be issued to the vendor which represented the best overall value to the Government. The RFQ further stated that "[m]eeting the requirements of the statement of work and experience and past performance, when combined [were] the most important factors for award. Price is secondary." RFQ Addendum l, at 29. Vendors were also required to submit with their quotation a videotape containing three 10-minute segments from three different video programs produced by the offeror in the past 5 years. The videotape was to be evaluated for creativity and technical quality. Id. The Social Security Administration received seven quotations. After evaluation of the quotations by the evaluation review panel (ERP), only the quotations of Production and A'Hern were found acceptable. The ERP awarded Production the highest possible score of 5 (on a scale of 0 to 5) under each evaluation factor-- compliance with the SOW requirements, experience, and past performance. Production also received a score of 5 for its videotape presentation, and an overall rating of 5. The ERP noted that Production had done an excellent job in producing similar medically-related videos for the agency and that its scriptwriter/director's extensive experience in this area would ensure the production of a high quality videotape under any award. The ERP strongly recommended that Production be given the work. A'Hern's quotation received scores of 5 for experience and past performance. However, A'Hern was given an overall score of 4 because of the score of 3 given its videotape presentation. The ERP found that "[t]he sample video was of acceptable quality . . . [h]owever, a form was used at one point, which the viewer could not clearly discern what was on it." Further, the "presentation of the information was not linear enough for the subject material being presented, which was somewhat confusing." The ERP found that A'Hern had extensive experience with various governmental agencies, having "produced 100s of films and videotapes . . . over the past 30 years." It also received favorable past performance ratings from clients on prior contracts. Technical Evaluation Report, Sept. 29, 1998, at 1-3. Production's price was $56,619; A'Hern's price was $31,527. Summary of Award Without Discussions at 4. The contracting officer (the source selection official) determined that "it was not in the government's best interest to pay an additional $25,000 for the services, by making an award to the highest technically acceptable offeror the Production Company." She noted that "[t]he project team believes the [A'Hern] Group can provide the services as required by our solicitation at the prices quoted." Summary of Award Without Discussions at 5. The record also shows that, prior to making her selection decision, the contracting officer asked the project officer, who was a member of the ERP, for her overall evaluation of A'Hern. The project officer responded that "this is to confirm that I do believe the A'Hern Group has a good understanding of our requirements [necessary] to produce the . . . videotape, based on the information they have submitted." Contracting Officer E-Mail Query and Fax, Sept.