National Aerospace Group, Inc., B-281958; B-281959, May 10, 1999

National Aerospace Group, Inc., B-281958; B-281959, May 10, 1999 TITLE: National Aerospace Group, Inc., B-281958; B-281959, May 10, 1999 BNUMBER: B-281958; B-281959 DATE: May 10, 1999 ********************************************************************** National Aerospace Group, Inc., B-281958; B-281959, May 10, 1999 Decision Matter of: National Aerospace Group, Inc. File: B-281958; B-281959 Date: May 10, 1999 Karl Dix, Jr., Esq., Smith, Currie & Hancock, for the protester. Mike Friedman for Airport Metals, an intervenor. Lillian Weiss, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Placement of an order at a significant price premium for the sole reason that the vendor quoting a lower price has no prior performance history in supplying the item being procured was unreasonable, where determination was not made in accordance with the stated evaluation scheme. DECISION National Aerospace Group, Inc. protests the issuance of purchase orders for sheet metal to other firms under request for quotations (RFQ) Nos. SPO500-99-T-A426 (RFQ-A426) and SPO540-99-Q-A152 (RFQ-A152) by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC). National argues that its quotations represented the best value under these two RFQs. We sustain National's protest of the order under RFQ-A426, and deny National's protest under RFQ-A152. RFQ-A426 was a simplified acquisition using the agency's automated purchase procedures. Under these procedures, RFQs are transmitted directly to an electronic bulletin board (EBB) maintained by the agency. Firms desiring access to the EBB to review the RFQs and to submit quotations are required to first register with the agency by completing a small purchase agreement (SPA). Once registered, vendors can then access the EBB either through a service or using their own personal computers via the Internet. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1; see Commonwealth Indus. Specialties, Inc., B-277833, Nov. 25, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 151 at 2-3; Arcy Mfg. Co., Inc.; Beard Servs., Inc.; Keys Wholesale, Inc.; Craftmaster Hardware Co., Inc., B-261538 et al., Aug. 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 283 at 1-2. The SPA, which every supplier must sign in order to obtain a password to submit quotations on the EBB, and which was applicable to this RFQ, provides as follows: DISC purchases at or below the SAT [simplified acquisition threshold] are subject to Best Value Buying techniques. This includes, but is not limited to, the Blue Chip Vendor Program, the Delivery Evaluation Factor Program, and Contracting Officer's individual determinations based on a comparative assessment of pertinent circumstances, including past performance, delivery and product quality. DISC Small Purchase Agreement, Modification, at 2nd unnumbered page. RFQ-A426 sought prices for metal sheets with a specified dimension for delivery within 120 days after the date of order. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The agency received four acceptable quotations in response to RFQ-A426. National submitted the low quotation at a price of $10,500, with delivery within 45 days from the date of the order. Tara Metals submitted a quotation of $13,083 with delivery within 70 days from the date of order. Agency Report, Tab 4, EBB Quotation Abstract for RFQ-A426. The agency evaluated vendors under the Automated Best Value Model (ABVM). Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. ABVM is an automated system that collects a vendor's past performance data for a specific period and translates it into a numeric score. Tara had an ABVM score of 95.4. National, which was a relatively new supplier, was given a rating of 999.9 because it lacked a performance history for this item. Id.; Agency Report, Tab 6, ABVM Rating Printout. Under the ABVM procedures, a supplier with no performance history is assigned a rating of 999.9, which is referred to in the record as a neutral rating. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The record also includes a facsimile sent at 9:15 a.m. on January 20, 1999 from National responding to an inquiry from the agency in which National advised the agency that the "material quoted as called out . . . no exceptions . . . . We have in stock." Protest, exh. 3. The award justification document, signed and dated on January 20, 1999, was a preprinted form, which permitted the contracting officer to select one of a variety of reasons for the award. Here, in pertinent part, the contracting officer completed the form as follows: "Lower priced offer(s) not selected because: . . . Other score(s) not a true indicator of performance because score(s) based on too few contract line items." Agency Report, Tab 7, Award Justification. There is no other contemporaneous award documentation.