Island Components Group, Inc., B-281517; B-281550, February

Island Components Group, Inc., B-281517; B-281550, February BNUMBER: B-281517; B-281550 DATE: February 19, 1999 TITLE: Island Components Group, Inc., B-281517; B-281550, February 19, 1999 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Island Components Group, Inc. File: B-281517; B-281550 Date:February 19, 1999 John J. Tiner for the protester. Benjamin G. Perkins, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests objecting to agency's evaluation of vendors' past delivery performance on the basis of data that do not distinguish between original and revised delivery dates are denied where agency demonstrates that delivery dates are never revised for the vast majority of contract line items; that data that do not distinguish between compliance with original and revised delivery dates still furnish meaningful information regarding a vendor's delivery performance; and that the agency will have no cost-effective means by which to evaluate past performance if it is not permitted to use the data. DECISION Island Components Group, Inc. protests the Defense Supply Center Richmond's (DSCR) inclusion in request for quotations (RFQ) Nos. SPO400-99-T-1755 and SPO430-99-Q-B271 of a clause providing for the evaluation of vendors' past performance on the basis of scores computed using the agency's Automated Best Value Model (ABVM). The protester argues that the data regarding delivery performance used by DSCR in computing the ABVM scores is open to manipulation by vendors because it does not distinguish between original and revised delivery dates and thus should not be relied upon. We deny the protests. DSCR issued RFQ No. SPO400-99-T-1755 for 21 electrical contact brush holder assemblies on October 30, 1998, with a due date for quotations of November 14. It issued RFQ No. SPO430-99-Q-B271 for 10 tachometer generator motors on November 10, with a due date for quotations of November 30. Each RFQ included DSCR's ABVM clause, which provides for selection of the vendor whose quotation represents the best value to the government, price and past performance considered.[1] The clause explains that each vendor will be assigned an ABVM score, derived by combining delivery and quality scores,[2] for each Federal Supply Class in which it has performed. The delivery score is based on a formula which considers the percentage of items tendered on or before the contract delivery date and the number of days the other items are past due.[3] The quality score is based on reported product and packaging deficiencies. The scores are recalculated each month as new performance data become available.[4] SAMMS, the computer system that maintains the data used to compute the ABVM scores, currently has only one data field to measure delivery date. If a contract is modified to change the delivery date, the new date appears in this field, without any indication that it is a revised date, and the system measures the vendor's performance from the new date. Thus, the system has no way of distinguishing between a contractor who meets an original delivery date and a contractor who meets an extended one. Island Components argues that because the current system is incapable of distinguishing between vendors who have complied with their original delivery commitments, and those who have complied with delivery dates extended through contract modifications, vendors with deep pockets can in effect purchase more favorable ABVM ratings by agreeing to pay DSCR to extend delivery dates with which they are unable to comply. This is unfair, the protester maintains, because some vendors may not have the financial resources to pay for such extensions, and as a result may receive comparatively lower ABVM scores. Until it has a system in place that will allow it to distinguish between vendors who have complied with their original delivery commitments and those who have complied with revised delivery schedules, DSCR should not evaluate vendors' delivery performance, the protester asserts. Agencies enjoy broad discretion in the selection of evaluation criteria, and we will not object to an agency's use of particular criteria so long as they reasonably relate to the agency's needs in choosing the vendor that will best serve its interests. Leon D. DeMatteis Constr. Corp., B-276877, July 30, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 36 at para. 3-4.