Opti-Lite Optical, B-281693, March 22, 1999

B-281693 Mar 22, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Source selection decision is not reasonable where the record does not provide any documentation or explanation which supports the price/technical tradeoff. The award determination was based entirely on a comparison of total technical and price point scores under a solicitation which does not provide for such a point-based tradeoff. Issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for commercial item prescription eyeglasses and services for VA beneficiaries. /1/ Opti-Lite principally contends that its offer was improperly evaluated and that the agency's selection decision was unreasonable. The solicitation listed 85 specific items or services for which offerors were required to provide a unit price. View Decision Matter of: Opti-Lite Optical File: B-281693 Date: March 22, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Opti-Lite Optical protests the award of a contract to Classic Optical Laboratories, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 663-56-98, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for commercial item prescription eyeglasses and services for VA beneficiaries. /1/ Opti-Lite principally contends that its offer was improperly evaluated and that the agency's selection decision was unreasonable. We sustain the protest. The solicitation, issued September 9, 1998, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity requirements contract to supply prescription eyeglasses on an as-needed basis to listed participating VA facilities. The solicitation listed 85 specific items or services for which offerors were required to provide a unit price. RFQ Part 1, Sec. A. The solicitation provided for award to the responsible offeror whose conforming offer was most advantageous to the government. The stated technical evaluation criteria consisted of methodology of approach, personnel qualifications and past performance. RFQ Part IV, at 103. Under past performance, the solicitation required offerors to submit a minimum of four references with evidence of their organization's qualification, experience and achievements with relevant ongoing contracts, or contracts that have been completed within the past 3 years. Id. at 104. The solicitation further provided that technical and past performance combined were approximately equal in weight to price. Id. at 105. Additionally, offerors were encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions or commercial items for satisfying the solicitation requirements, and were cautioned that the agency reserved the right to award on the basis of initial offers without holding discussions. RFQ Part III, at 99, 102. Six offerors responded to the solicitation. /2/ Opti-Lite submitted two separate price proposals; in both of them for many items, it entered "0." On October 20, the contracting officer contacted Opti-Lite to clarify whether entries of "0" in Opti-Lite's price proposal meant no bid or no additional charge. Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 2. Opti-Lite faxed a clarification letter stating that all items marked with a "0" would be "supplied when ordered at no additional charge." AR, exh. 3, Letter from Protester to Contracting Officer (Oct. 20, 1998). As a result of the technical evaluation, Classic's offer received 92 out of 100 points for technical merit and was ranked first, and the protester's offer received a technical score of 70 and was ranked third. AR, exh. 4, Award Memorandum, Nov. 18, 1998, at 1. Because the protester's evaluated price of $624,380 was the lowest, it was awarded the top score of 100 for price. Id. at 2. Classic's second low evaluated price of $706,854.23 received a score of 88. The contracting officer then added the technical and price scores to determine the highest-ranking offer. Classic's offer received the highest total point score of 180 and the protester's was second with a total score of 170. Id. Classic's pricing was compared to current contract prices and was found to represent a savings of 8 percent. The protester's prices were approximately 18 percent lower than current contract prices and were 12 percent lower than Classic's. However, the contracting officer was concerned that the protester's "unrealistic" price proposal might jeopardize performance. Id. The contracting officer concluded that, based on the protester's pricing scheme, it was possible to order complete sets of glasses at no charge. The contracting officer's award memorandum concludes that award to Classic was warranted based on Classic's highest combined total score. Id. at 3. The protester was notified of the award by letter dated November 20, and was provided a debriefing by letter dated November 25.