Korrect Optical, B-281800, April 9, 1999

B-281800 Apr 09, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest of agency's evaluation of offeror's past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the applicable evaluation factors. 2. Higher-priced proposal is unobjectionable where the solicitation made technical considerations and past performance more important than price and the agency reasonably concluded that the technical superiority and better past performance record of the awardee warranted payment of the associated price premium. Korrect principally contends that the agency improperly evaluated its past performance because the agency relied on negative reference information to which the protester was not provided an adequate opportunity to respond. View Decision Matter of: Korrect Optical File: B-281800 Date: April 9, 1999 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Korrect Optical protests the award of a contract to Classic Optical Laboratories, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 583-75-98, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for prescription eyeglasses and services for VA beneficiaries. Korrect principally contends that the agency improperly evaluated its past performance because the agency relied on negative reference information to which the protester was not provided an adequate opportunity to respond. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued August 12, 1998 as a commercial-item procurement, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to provide the necessary resources, facilities, and establishments in each community where either a Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 11 VA Medical Center or Outpatient Clinic is located, in order to furnish prescription eyeglasses to eligible beneficiaries. RFP Sec. A.6.3. The solicitation provided for award to the responsible offeror whose conforming offer was most advantageous to the government. RFP Sec. C.4. The RFP provided for evaluation of the proposals under the criteria of technical factors, past performance, and price. Id. The technical evaluation criteria consisted of the education of individuals providing supplies and services to VA beneficiaries and the offerors' management capabilities and approach. Id. Under management capabilities, offerors were to describe management methods to ensure the provision of prompt and quality service. Id. Under past performance, the solicitation required offerors to identify all federal, state and local government contracts and private contracts of similar type, size, scope, and complexity that were ongoing, or had been completed within the past 3 years. RFP Sec. C.4.B. The RFP further provided that the information must evidence customer satisfaction with the offeror's products and services, and demonstrate the offeror's compliance with and fulfillment of the requirements under previous contracts. Id. Three offerors, including Korrect and Classic, submitted proposals by the September 30, 1998 closing date. One proposal was determined to be technically unacceptable and was not further considered. After performing an initial evaluation, the agency determined that discussions should be held with each of the other two offerors. Under the initial evaluation, Classic's management approach was determined to be better than that of Korrect, and Korrect was found not to have provided sufficient information about the education and experience of its employees. The evaluators were also concerned about whether Korrect's management and capacity would be sufficient to permit Korrect to satisfactorily handle a large increase in workload. Additionally, the evaluators had concerns with Korrect's past performance on current/recent contracts with other VA medical centers. In the initial evaluation, Classic's proposal received a score of 34.5 out of 40 for technical, 15.75 out of 20 for past performance, and 25.23 out of 40 for price. Korrect's proposal received a score of 20 out of 40 for technical, 4.25 out of 20 for past performance, and 40 out of 40 for price. Agency Report, exh. 5. The contracting officer and the chairman of the technical evaluation team held discussions with both offerors, seeking clarification of various issues, such as past performance, frame selection, and additional dispensing locations. During these discussions, the contracting officer advised Korrect of the adverse past performance information identified by the evaluation team and requested Korrect to provide a written response to the adverse past performance matters and to the other issues as well. Agency Report, exh. 1. The protester responded to the agency's concerns by letter dated October 24, 1998. Specifically, Korrect explained that certain delivery delays at VA medical facilities in Illinois and Virginia were due to continuous frame backorders from certain manufacturers and other delays were due to the size of Korrect's former facility. Protest, exh. 2.