Korrect Optical, Inc., B-288128; B-288128.2, September 21, 2001

Korrect Optical, Inc., B-288128; B-288128.2, September 21, 2001 TITLE: Korrect Optical, Inc., B-288128; B-288128.2, September 21, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288128; B-288128.2 DATE: September 21, 2001 ********************************************************************** Korrect Optical, Inc., B-288128; B-288128.2, September 21, 2001 Decision Matter of: Korrect Optical, Inc. File: B-288128; B-288128.2 Date: September 21, 2001 Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., for the protester. Merilee D. Rosenberg, Esq., Philip Kauffman, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq. Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's calculation of the mathematical average of prices submitted by five competitive range offerors, and disclosure of that average price to protester and awardee, who were the only offerors included in the agency's subsequent competitive range determination, did not constitute prohibited communications. 2. Agency's evaluation of protester's technical proposal was reasonable where protester failed to adequately respond to multiple technical weaknesses and deficiencies which the agency had called to protester's attention during discussions. DECISION Korrect Optical, Inc. protests the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) award of a contract to Safe-Lite Optical Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. 590-26-01 to provide prescription eyeglasses for eligible veterans. Korrect protests that the agency engaged in an auction, improperly evaluated technical proposals, and failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on February 12, 2001, seeking proposals to provide prescription eyeglasses to eligible veterans at specified VA facilities, and contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period and four 1-year option periods. Section B of the solicitation contained line items for various types of prescription lenses, advised offerors that the agency estimated a total of 18,500 eyeglasses would be required annually, and required offerors to propose fixed prices for the various individual line items. The solicitation required offerors to submit cost and technical proposals and established the following technical evaluation factors: ability to make lenses, quality of frame selection, staff experience and qualifications, and quality assurance plan. Agency Report, exh. 3, RFP at 26; Agency Report, exh. 10, Letters from Contracting Officer to Offerors (Apr. 2, 2001). [1] Regarding the basis for award, the solicitation provided that the combined technical factors would be slightly more important than price. The agency received eight proposals by the March 15, 2001 due date, including proposals submitted by Korrect and Safe-Lite. [2] After separating pricing information from the technical proposals, the technical proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation panel (TEP). Consistent with the solicitation statement that technical factors would be more important than price, the agency assigned a total of 60 points to the technical factors and 40 points to price. [3] Although Korrect's proposed price was the lowest submitted, its technical proposal was ranked sixth of the eight proposals submitted due to various evaluated technical weaknesses and/or deficiencies. In evaluating Korrect's technical proposal, the TEP was concerned that the proposal failed to sufficiently demonstrate Korrect's ability to make the required lenses--one of the two most important technical evaluation factors. Specifically, Korrect's initial proposal stated that Korrect was currently producing 500 pairs of glasses per day and had produced a total 91,480 in the prior year, but indicated it did not intend to increase current staffing or augment other manufacturing resources to accommodate production of the additional 18,500 pairs of glasses--more than 20 percent of its prior annual production--that would be required annually under this contract. Accordingly, the TEP downgraded Korrect's proposal under the evaluation factor covering the ability to make lenses. The TEP also downgraded Korrect's proposal under the factor for quality of frame selection, criticizing the durability of the frames Korrect had submitted. [4] Finally, the TEP downgraded Korrect's proposal under the factor for the quality assurance plan, on the basis that the proposal contained no evidence of a quality assurance process and no training plan. Despite Korrect's low technical ranking, its proposal received the maximum score of 40 points for price based on its lowest offered price.