Schaeffer Eye Center, B-284268, March 20, 2000

B-284268 Mar 20, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Two proposals were essentially technically equal. Selection of lower-priced proposal is unobjectionable. Lower-rated technical proposal is not in accordance with the RFP's stated evaluation scheme. Which provided that technical factors were more important than price. Offerors were to submit technical and price proposals. Provided that the agency "will award a contract . . . to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. Were identified: quality assurance plan (weighted at 35 points). The lowest evaluated price proposal was to receive the maximum points available for the cost/pricing factor. The RFP provided that each technical factor was more important than the cost/pricing factor. View Decision Matter of: Schaeffer Eye Center File: B-284268 Date: March 20, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Schaeffer Eye Center protests the award of a contract to Classic Optical Laboratories, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 247-0003-99, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for prescription eyeglasses for eligible veterans at VA medical centers in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. Schaeffer contends that the award on the basis of Classic's lower-priced, lower-rated technical proposal is not in accordance with the RFP's stated evaluation scheme, which provided that technical factors were more important than price. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a base year and 2 option years. RFP, Statement of Work, Para. 3, at 23. Offerors were to submit technical and price proposals. RFP, Proposal Submittal Instructions, Para. 1, at 30. The RFP's evaluation scheme, referencing Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.212-2 Evaluation--Commercial Items, provided that the agency "will award a contract . . . to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered." RFP Sec. 52.212-2(a), at 31. The following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were identified: quality assurance plan (weighted at 35 points), past performance and demonstrated capability (weighted at 30 points), personnel qualifications (weighted at 20 points), and cost/pricing (weighted at 15 points). Id. at 31-32; Protester's Comments at 1. The lowest evaluated price proposal was to receive the maximum points available for the cost/pricing factor, with the remaining proposals receiving a proportion of those points based on the relationship of their prices to the lowest price. RFP at 32. The RFP provided that each technical factor was more important than the cost/pricing factor, and combined, the three technical factors were significantly more important than cost/pricing. Id. Eight proposals were received in response to the RFP; three of the proposals were subsequently eliminated from the competitive range after the initial evaluation of proposals. Discussions were conducted with the remaining five offerors and revised proposals were received and evaluated. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. Five evaluators independently scored the proposals under each factor; the evaluators' scores were then averaged for each offeror. Final Evaluation Scores at 1. The Schaeffer and Classic proposals received slightly higher averaged technical scores than the other proposals. Schaeffer's proposal received a slightly higher average point score than the Classic proposal under the first two factors (quality assurance and past performance/capability), and Classic's proposal was rated higher than Schaeffer's for the third factor (personnel). Schaeffer's proposal received a slightly higher average total technical score (69.28 points out of the available 85 technical points) than the Classic proposal (which received a technical score of 66.8 points). Classic submitted the lowest-priced proposal (at a total price of $2,215,683.63), which received the maximum 15 points available under the cost/pricing factor; Schaeffer submitted the highest-priced proposal of all offerors (at a total price of $2,480,268), which received 13.4 points under the cost/pricing factor. The Schaeffer proposal's overall combined technical and price score of 82.68 was less than 1 point higher than the Classic proposal's overall score of 81.8 (out of the 100 available evaluation points). Id. at 2. The technical evaluation board recommended that award be made to Classic, as the offeror submitting the proposal deemed most advantageous to the agency; the evaluation team found "no discernable distinction between the technical scores," and concluded that the 11-percent price differential in an award to Classic, compared to Schaeffer's higher-priced proposal, offered "considerable savings." Cost/Technical Tradeoff at 1-2.