Marathon Watch Company Limited, B-281876; B-281876.2, April

Marathon Watch Company Limited, B-281876; B-281876.2, April BNUMBER: B-281876; B-281876.2 DATE: April 22, 1999 TITLE: Marathon Watch Company Limited, B-281876; B-281876.2, April 22, 1999 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Marathon Watch Company Limited File:B-281876; B-281876.2 Date:April 22, 1999 Claude P. Goddard, Jr., Esq., Kilcullen, Wilson and Kilcullen, for the protester. Philip F. Eckert, Jr., Esq., and Stephen Stastny, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Adam Vodraska, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency selection of higher-priced vendor with excellent performance history instead of lower-priced vendor, whose performance reflected delivery delinquencies, was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme, which provided that if the vendor with the best past performance history did not offer the lowest price, the agency would make a tradeoff of price and past performance (including such considerations as inventory status and historical delivery problems), where there was a low inventory of the solicited item and the higher-priced vendor's better performance record indicated a lower performance risk. DECISION Marathon Watch Company Limited protests the issuance of a purchase order by the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), to Stocker & Yale, Inc. (S&Y) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO440-99-X-L121 for analog navigator wrist watches.[1] Marathon challenges the adequacy of the best value determination which resulted in the agency's issuance of the purchase order to S&Y. We deny the protest. DSCR issued the RFQ on November 30, 1998 for a quantity of 2,000 watches, National Stock Number 6645-01-364-4042, a "critical application item." RFQ at 1, 3-5. Delivery of the watches was required within 60 days after the vendor's receipt of the order. Id. at 1. The RFQ stated that the watches must conform to specification MIL-W-46374F. Id. at 3. The RFQ contained the standard "Qualification Requirements" clause, as set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation sec. 52.209-1, which provides notice that award is limited to vendors offering products that have previously been tested and approved for inclusion on the applicable qualified products list (QPL). Id. at 8-9. The RFQ advised that the best value determination would be based on a comparative assessment of prices and past performance, which were equally weighted. Id. at 18-19. The past performance factor considered quality performance and delivery performance to be "of equal value." Id. at 18. If the vendor with the best past performance history did not offer the lowest price, the agency would make the appropriate tradeoff of price for past performance, and listed several considerations such as delivery schedule/inventory status and historical delivery/quality problems that could affect the tradeoff determination. Id. at 19. The RFQ, at 18-19, established that past performance would be evaluated in accordance with an automated best value model (ABVM). The ABVM is a computerized compilation of data on vendors' past performance under DSCR contracts that is converted into numeric scores for comparison by the agency for evaluation purposes. An ABVM score ranging from 0 to a perfect score of 100 is assigned on a monthly basis to each vendor for a particular Federal Supply Class (FSC) (FSC score) and for performance in all FSCs with DSCR (Center score). An offeror may have multiple FSC scores for different items but will have only one Center score, which is an average of the offeror's FSC scores. The ABVM score, whether FSC or Center, is a combination of a vendor's delivery performance score and quality performance score. The ABVM score measures delivery performance during the preceding 15 months, excluding the most recent 2-month period, and quality performance during the past 15 months, excluding the most recent month. The delivery performance score reflects delinquent contract line items--shipments that are not shipped and/or received in their entirety by the delivery due date. Negative delivery and quality performance data to be included in the ABVM score are made available to each vendor by the 15th day of the month on the DSCR electronic bulletin board. The RFQ advised vendors that they could review their negative performance data and challenge its accuracy if they disagreed with it.