MG Industries, B-283010.3, January 24, 2000

B-283010.3 Jan 24, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest challenging source selection official's determination that offers were essentially technically equal is denied where evaluation record supports that judgment and source selection official reasonably made awards on basis of lower evaluated prices. Awardee's prices are not unbalanced where there is no evidence that prices are significantly understated or overstated. 3. Protest that agency improperly failed to evaluate spot pricing discounts is denied where solicitation did not provide for evaluation of spot pricing discounts. Where record shows that communication with awardee provided no opportunity to revise its offer and was not intended to permit submission of revised offer. MGI also alleges that BOC's offer was unbalanced and should have been rejected. View Decision Matter of: MG Industries File: B-283010.3 Date: January 24, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION MG Industries (MGI) protests the award of contracts to BOC Gases and Praxair, Inc. by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 10-99-0017, for commercially available liquid oxygen (LO2) and liquid nitrogen (LN2). /1/ MGI essentially contends that NASA did not evaluate offers and select the awardees in accordance with the RFQ's stated evaluation scheme. MGI also alleges that BOC's offer was unbalanced and should have been rejected. We deny the protest. The RFQ was issued under the commercial item procedures of FAR Part 12, for delivery of LO2 and LN2 to the Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Mississippi, and delivery of LN2 only to NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in Louisiana. RFP art. 1.B, at 3. LO2 is used at SSC as a propellant oxidizer during rocket engine testing; LN2 is used at SSC and MAF for pressurizing tanks, cold shock and purge gas operations. The agency intended to award two fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for LO2, with annual minimum quantities of 10,000 tons and annual maximum quantities of 60,000 tons. RFQ art. 1.D, at 3-4, and amend. No. 1. For delivery of LN2 to SSC and MAF, the agency intended to award a single contract, with annual minimum and maximum quantities of 13,000 tons and 38,000 tons, respectively. Id. The contracts are to be performed over a 2-year base period, with 3 additional option years. RFQ art. 2, at 4. Awards were to be made to the offerors whose offers were determined to be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The solicitation set forth three evaluation factors in descending order of importance: technical capability, price, and past performance. RFQ art. 27, at 20. As relevant to this protest, offerors were instructed to provide specific technical information, not to exceed five pages, such as production facilities, delivery equipment, storage capacity, and quality management systems; prices per ton for LO2 and LN2 for each base and option year; and relevant past performance data. RFQ art. 30, at 26. Under the technical capability factor, the agency would assess the offeror's ability to produce and deliver products that conform to the solicitation requirements, quality management system, peak production capacity, peak distribution capacity, storage capacity, and the distance to the delivery points. RFQ art. 27, at 20. The past performance factor involved a review of data received from references for three current or former contracts with similar requirements. Id. As to price, offers for LN2 would be evaluated by multiplying the proposed price per ton times the best estimated quantity (BEQ) as set forth in the solicitation. /2/ For LO2 only, the proposed price would be multiplied by 75 percent of the BEQ to adjust for the dual contracting approach. In addition, the agency would evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. RFQ art. 27, at 20. NASA received six offers in response to the RFQ by the May 6 closing date. BOC submitted an alternate offer which reduced its price per ton for LO2 if the firm was awarded a combined LO2/LN2 contract. A three-member evaluation board evaluated the offers using an adjectival rating of technically capable or not technically capable to meet the solicitation requirements. Written requests for technical clarifications were issued to each offeror, and the written responses were evaluated. Agency Report, Tabs 6-8. Under the technical capability evaluation factor, the awardees were rated technically capable. The evaluators found that each firm was capable of producing and delivering quantities of LO2 and LN2 that exceeded the agency's maximum requirements of these products. MGI was evaluated as technically capable; however, the evaluators noted that by itself, MGI's alternate plant did not have enough capacity to provide the maximum daily LO2 requirements for SSC.