Power Connector, Inc., B-286875; B-286875.2, February 14, 2001

Power Connector, Inc., B-286875; B-286875.2, February 14, 2001 TITLE: Power Connector, Inc., B-286875; B-286875.2, February 14, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286875; B-286875.2 DATE: February 14, 2001 ********************************************************************** Power Connector, Inc., B-286875; B-286875.2, February 14, 2001 Decision Matter of: Power Connector, Inc. File: B-286875; B-286875.2 Date: February 14, 2001 Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., and Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, for the protester. Geoffrey A. Barrow, Esq., Jenner & Block, for Day Leather Corporation, an intervenor. Michael A. Lewis, Esq., Federal Prison Industries, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In evaluating past performance under solicitation for quantity of leather, agency reasonably disregarded non-leather supply contracts in its evaluation of the protester, and limited its evaluation to leather contracts, on the basis that leather contracts were the most relevant. DECISION Power Connector, Inc. (PCI) protests the award of a contract to Day Leather Corporation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 6200000119, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, UNICOR, for leather to be used in manufacturing work gloves. PCI argues that UNICOR should have rejected Day's quotation as materially unbalanced, and that it misevaluated PCI's past performance. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for a best value award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year, with four 1-year option periods. The quotations were to be evaluated against three factors, listed in descending order of importance--past performance, compliance with technical specifications and price; the past performance and technical factors combined were significantly more important than price. RFQ at 39. In order to establish compliance with the technical specifications, vendors were required to submit samples and lab test results for evaluation on a pass/fail basis. Regarding past performance, vendors were required to complete a business management questionnaire listing, among other things, from three to five references for previous similar contracts performed within the past 3 years. Id. at 34. Prices were to be quoted on a per-foot basis for estimated quantities, with the evaluation to be based on the total extended prices for the base and option years. Four quotations, including PCI's and Day's, were received and found to comply with the technical specifications. Day's price ($9,720,000) was low, and PCI's ($9,975,000) second low. Agency Report (AR) at 3. Day was rated overall excellent for past performance based on three references for leather contracts (two excellent ratings, one good), and PCI was rated good based on three references for leather contracts (one excellent, two good ratings). Id. at 4-5. The contracting officer selected Day for award, citing its superior past performance. Price Analysis at 2. UNBALANCED PRICING PCI maintains that Day's quotation should have been rejected as materially unbalanced because it quoted $1.36 per foot for the base year and $1.28 for each of the option years, despite the fact that the solicitation requests the same item for each year. The concept of unbalanced pricing has only limited application in the context of a procurement under which the government's primary objective is the best overall value rather than the lowest price, USATREX Int'l, Inc., B-275592, B-275592.2, Mar. 6, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 99 at 6; we apply the concept of unbalancing in such cases only where price constitutes the basis for the source selection. MG Indus., B-283010.3, Jan. 24, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 17 at 7. Here, although the award was ultimately made to the low-priced vendor, price was listed as the least important award factor, and the solicitation specifically provided that the technical and past performance factors were significantly more important than price. In addition, while in her source selection decision the contracting officer recognized that Day's price was low, it is clear that price was not the basis for her award decision. Rather, the source selection decision states, "In conclusion, it has been determined that award should be made to Day Leather Corporation due to the experience they have with the leather business." Price Analysis at 2. Since technical and past performance factors were more important than price, and since price did not dictate the award decision, the concept of unbalancing does not apply, and this argument could not provide a basis for sustaining the protest. Human Resource Sys., Inc.; Health Staffers, Inc., B- 262254.3 et al., 96-1 CPD para. 35 at 7-8.