Parmatic Filter Corporation, B-285288; B-285288.2, August 14, 2000

Parmatic Filter Corporation, B-285288; B-285288.2, August 14, 2000 TITLE: Parmatic Filter Corporation, B-285288; B-285288.2, August 14, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285288; B-285288.2 DATE: August 14, 2000 ********************************************************************** Parmatic Filter Corporation, B-285288; B-285288.2, August 14, 2000 Decision Matter of: Parmatic Filter Corporation File: B-285288; B-285288.2 Date: August 14, 2000 Claude P. Goddard, Jr., Esq., and Hal J. Perloff, Esq., Wickwire Gavin, for the protester. Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., and Jennifer C. Adams, Esq., Martin & Adams, for Hunter Manufacturing, Inc., the intervenor. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Joseph M. Picchiotti, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably downgraded the protester's proposal under the technical capability subfactor of the technical factor in a solicitation for the acquisition of filters, where it reasonably concluded, based on the protester's proposal, that there was some doubt that the offeror had the capability or capacity to produce the filters at the required level. 2. Agency reasonably did not consider an offeror's experience and past performance in evaluating the technical capability subfactor of the technical factor where the solicitation did not contemplate that experience and past performance would be so considered and provided for the evaluation of past performance under a separate evaluation factor. 3. Agency reasonably rated the awardee's past performance superior to the protester's, even though both offerors had problems in timely and successfully performing prior relevant contracts, where the agency reasonably concluded that the awardee had a significantly better record of recovering from contract delays. 4. The protester was not prejudiced by the agency's consideration of the awardee's initial proposal which exceeded the page limitations on proposals stated in the solicitation, where the proposal contained only three pages beyond the limitations, no page limits were placed on the discussions conducted with the offerors, and there was no evidence that the awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage by exceeding the page limits. 5. The limitation on subcontracting contained in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.219-14, which was incorporated into a small business set-aside solicitation by reference, does not apply to individual line items, but to the contract as a whole. 6. Protest is sustained where the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated the quality programs of the awardee and the protester and this was a significant factor justifying the award selection. DECISION Parmatic Filter Corporation protests the award of a contract to Hunter Manufacturing, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE20-00-R-0015 issued by the Department of the Army, Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM), Rock Island, Illinois, for gas and particulate filters and filter canisters. Parmatic protests TACOM's evaluation of the proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest in part and sustain it in part. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside on January 6, 2000, contemplated the award of one or more fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for 1 year with 4 option years. RFP at 5. One or more contracts would be awarded for a total of three items: contract line item number (CLIN) 0001 for M48A1 gas particulate filters, CLIN 0002 for 200 cubic feet per minute (cfm) gas and particulate filters, and CLIN 0003 for hermetically sealed filter canisters. Id. The RFP stated an estimated quantity for each CLIN for the base year and each option year. [1] Id. at 6. The RFP stated the following basis for award: The award of a contract will be made to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the government based on an integrated assessment of technical, past performance, quality, small business participation and price. Technical, past performance and quality are of equal importance and individually are more important than price. Small business participation is of least importance among all non-price factors and is of less importance than the price. Because this a best value procurement, the government reserves the right to make an award(s) to someone other than the low priced offeror. Id. at 46. The technical factor had two subfactors: carbon-fill/manufacturing process and manufacturing capability. The quality factor also had two subfactors: quality program and process control system.