Parmatic Filter Corporation, B-285288.3; B-285288.4, March 30, 2001

Parmatic Filter Corporation, B-285288.3; B-285288.4, March 30, 2001 TITLE: Parmatic Filter Corporation, B-285288.3; B-285288.4, March 30, 2001 BNUMBER: B-285288.3; B-285288.4 DATE: March 30, 2001 ********************************************************************** Parmatic Filter Corporation, B-285288.3; B-285288.4, March 30, 2001 Decision Matter of: Parmatic Filter Corporation File: B-285288.3; B-285288.4 Date: March 30, 2001 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. Vera Meza, 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 determined in evaluating the offerors' past performance that there was a significant difference in risk between the awardee, which was rated excellent, and the protester, which was rated marginal, based on the offerors' recent contract performance, including the offerors' different records of responding to the agency in resolving production failures, and that this difference justified the payment of a price premium to the awardee. 2. Agency reasonably determined that the awardee's quality plan was superior to the protester's. 3. Agency's improper failure to consider a change in the government's requirements, in reevaluating proposals and making a new award selection, did not prejudice the protester, even crediting the protester's assertion that its price advantage would have been 15 percent rather than the 12 percent stated in the award selection document if the changed requirements had been considered, where there is no indication that the award selection would have been different, given the awardee's superior past performance and quality plan, and the protester's marginal past performance, which was found to represent a serious risk that the government could not assume. DECISION Parmatic Filter Corporation protests an award 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 particulate filters. We deny the protest. The RFP included three contract line item numbers (CLIN) and contemplated the award of one or more contracts. CLIN 0001 was for M48A1 gas particulate filters while the other CLINs were for other types of filters or canisters. On April 19, 2000, TACOM awarded one contract to Hunter covering all three CLINs. The RFP provided for a best-value award based on an integrated assessment of the listed evaluation factors. The technical, past performance and quality evaluation factors were said to be of equal importance to one another and individually were more important than price, and the small business participation factor was less important than any of the factors. The quality factor had two subfactors: quality program and process control system. Parmatic protested the agency's evaluation and source selection decision, challenging the ratings under all evaluation factors, except price, with regard to all three CLINs. In Parmatic Filter Corp., B-285288, B-285288.2, Aug. 14, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 185, we denied the protest in part and sustained it in part. We found that the source selection authority (SSA) reasonably considered the two proposals essentially equivalent under the technical and small business participation factors, and reasonably found Hunter superior to Parmatic under the past performance factor. We sustained Parmatic's protest with respect to CLIN 0001 because the agency's evaluation of both Parmatic's and Hunter's proposals under the quality subfactors was unreasonable and unequal, so that the award selection for CLIN 0001, based in significant part on these ratings, lacked a reasonable basis. [1] We recommended that the agency reevaluate the proposals, conduct discussions if appropriate, and make a new source selection decision with respect to CLIN 001. In response to our decision, TACOM conducted discussions on the quality factor and to obtain updated past performance information; no discussions were conducted, nor were revised proposals permitted under the other factors. TACOM made this determination because the evaluation ratings under the other factors were found during the prior protest to be reasonable and because "there was no reason to believe that the ratings relative to these factors would change through additional discussions." Agency Report, Tab 3, Source Selection Decision, at 2.