Saco Defense Corporation, B-283885, January 20, 2000

B-283885 Jan 20, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Evaluation was inconsistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme where. Including effectiveness of the total quality system and how well quality processes are controlled. The non-price evaluation factors were more important than price. While quality and past performance were significantly more important than small business participation. The solicitation further indicated that price was not the most important consideration. M. The solicitation provided that proposals were to be assigned adjectival ratings of excellent/very low risk. Both Saco's and Ramo's RFOs were rated good/low risk for quality and excellent/very low risk for past performance. Although Saco's RFO was rated as excellent for small business participation and Ramo's as only adequate in that area. View Decision Matter of: Saco Defense Corporation File: B-283885 Date: January 20, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Saco Defense Corporation protests the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command's (TACOM) award of a contract to Ramo Manufacturing, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE20-98-R-0201, for M2 machine guns, stellite-lined M2 barrel assemblies, and M2 bolt sub-assemblies. Saco contests the evaluation of technical proposals and the resulting source selection. We sustain the protest. The solicitation, issued June 23, 1999, provided for award to be made on the basis of best value to the government, considering past performance, quality, small business participation, and price. When combined, the non-price evaluation factors were more important than price, while quality and past performance were significantly more important than small business participation. The solicitation further indicated that price was not the most important consideration. RFP Sec. M. The solicitation provided that proposals were to be assigned adjectival ratings of excellent/very low risk, good/low risk, adequate/moderate risk, marginal/high risk, or poor/very high risk for each non-price factor. RFP Secs. M.1, M.2, M.3. /1/ Five offerors submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. After conducting discussions with the offerors, TACOM requested and received revised final offers (RFO). Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2-3. Both Saco's and Ramo's RFOs were rated good/low risk for quality and excellent/very low risk for past performance. Although Saco's RFO was rated as excellent for small business participation and Ramo's as only adequate in that area, Ramo's price [DELETED] was [DELETED] lower than Saco's price [DELETED]. Noting that small business participation was not heavily weighted under the stated evaluation approach, the source selection authority (SSA) concluded that Saco's advantage in this regard was not worth the price premium associated with its proposal and that Ramo's proposal instead offered the best value to the government. Source Selection Document (SSD) at 7-8. This protest followed the ensuing award to Ramo. Saco challenges the evaluation under the quality factor. The solicitation provided for quality to be evaluated based on the "offeror's likelihood of only offering conforming material for acceptance" under the contract. RFP Sec. M.1.1. According to the solicitation, "[t]he Quality element will be evaluated by reviewing the information furnished concerning the offeror's quality system. . . . Evaluation will consist of assessing the effectiveness of the total quality system, including how well the accuracy/precision of acceptance inspection equipment and all other processes are controlled." Id. In this regard, the RFP provided that the contractor "shall implement and maintain a quality system that ensures the functional and physical conformity of all products or services you furnish under this contract. Your quality system shall achieve (1) defect prevention and (2) process control, providing adequate quality controls throughout all areas of contract performance." RFP Sec. E-7(a). Offerors were required to specify the quality standard--"based on (1) international quality standards . . . , or (2) military, or (3) commercial, or (4) national quality standards"--that their system complies with and "represent that your performance under this contract will be in conformance with your quality system." RFP Secs. E-7(b), L.1.1(a).