Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC, B-289093; B-289093.2, December 27, 2001

Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC, B-289093; B-289093.2, December 27, 2001 TITLE: Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC, B-289093; B-289093.2, December 27, 2001 BNUMBER: B-289093; B-289093.2 DATE: December 27, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC File: B-289093; B-289093.2 Date: December 27, 2001 Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, for the protester. D. Susan Spiegelman-Boyd, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 1. Protester was not entitled to higher rating than awardee for experience simply because protester previously had furnished the battery requested by the solicitation and awardee has not, where protester's experience was not recent and procuring agency reasonably found that both protester and awardee had recent experience producing similar batteries. 2. Past performance evaluation was not inequitable based on fact that agency was able to obtain information from government sources concerning awardee's delinquencies under prior contracts, but had to ask protester itself to explain its delinquencies because agency personnel did not have the contract numbers necessary to obtain the information from government sources; although result was additional burden on protester, key consideration is that protester had a meaningful opportunity to respond to agency's concerns. 3. Awardee did not improperly qualify its proposed price by reserving the right to separately cost certain work, where that work was not within the scope of the solicitation. DECISION Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC protests the award of a contract to Yardney Technical Products, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-01-R-0068, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for replacement silver/zinc batteries for the Minuteman Missile. Eagle principally argues that the Navy misevaluated its past performance, and failed to hold meaningful discussions with it. We deny the protest. The solicitation requested 20 first article silver/zinc batteries, with two options of 40 each production batteries, and associated documentation. The batteries must meet Navy specifications and drawings for the SE-13G battery, which currently is used in the Minuteman to power the stage 1 flight control hydraulics. Agency Report (AR) at 3. The solicitation provided for a "best value" award based on an evaluation of past performance and price, which were of equal weight. [1] The RFP contained two past performance subfactors: 1(a) experience in manufacturing primary, remotely activated silver/zinc batteries, and 1(b) the contractor's record of meeting delivery schedules. Three proposals were received, two of which, Eagle's and Yardney's, were included in the competitive range. Following discussions with Eagle and Yardney and receipt and evaluation of final proposal revisions (FPR), Yardney's proposal was rated overall highly favorable for past performance, while Eagle's was rated favorable. Eagle's offered price was [DELETED] lower than Yardney's. AR at 19. In its best value analysis, the agency determined that Yardney's more favorable past performance rating was worth its additional cost, and therefore made award to Yardney. This protest followed. EXPERIENCE Under past performance subfactor 1(a), the Navy was to consider the offerors': experience in the manufacturing of primary, remotely activated silver oxide/zinc batteries. The more recent the experience and the more similarities to the battery defined in this solicitation, the more weight will be given. RFP at 39. In its evaluation, the Navy concluded that both Yardney and Eagle had manufactured remotely activated silver/zinc batteries, and thus rated both firms highly favorable for the subfactor. [2] AR at 8, 12. Eagle disagrees with these ratings. Noting that the solicitation provided that more weight would be given to more similar experience, Eagle asserts that its rating should be higher than Yardney's, since it is the previous supplier of the SE-13G battery, while Yardney has never produced this battery. The evaluation of past performance is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency. NV Servs., B-284119.2, Feb. 25, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 64 at 13. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of past performance, we will not reevaluate proposals, but instead, will consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Id. The evaluation here was reasonable. While the agency found that Eagle had experience with a similar battery, it also found that the experience was not recent, since Eagle has not produced the battery since 1990.