Scot, Incorporated, B-292580, October 3, 2003

B-292580 Oct 03, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is reasonable. Where the awardee had acquired a firm that was already a qualified source at one facility and had requested qualification at a recently acquired facility to which it was transferring technology and assets from the qualified source that had designed and produced the impulse cartridge. For BBU-63/B impulse cartridges. /1/ Scot contends that Pac Sci Quantic is not a qualified source for the cartridges as required by the RFP. Which provided notice that the award was limited to firms offering to meet certain qualification requirements. Or source is actually included on the appropriate list and (2) if. The contracting officer may either terminate the contract for default or allow performance if that is in the government's best interest and adequate consideration is offered. /2/ RFP at 14-15. View Decision Scot, Incorporated, B-292580, October 3, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Scot, Incorporated protests the award of a contract to Pac Sci Quantic under request for proposals (RFP) No. F42630-03-R-3233, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for BBU-63/B impulse cartridges. /1/ Scot contends that Pac Sci Quantic is not a qualified source for the cartridges as required by the RFP. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued March 12, 2003, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for base and option quantities. The RFP contained the standard "Qualifications Requirements" clause, as set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52-209-1, which provided notice that the award was limited to firms offering to meet certain qualification requirements. The clause states in part that (1) products, manufacturers, or sources must be qualified at the time of award whether or not the product, manufacturer, or source is actually included on the appropriate list and (2) if, after award, the contracting officer learns that an applicable qualification requirement has not been met at the time of award, the contracting officer may either terminate the contract for default or allow performance if that is in the government's best interest and adequate consideration is offered. /2/ RFP at 14-15; FAR Sec. 52-209-1 (b) and (d). The clause also provides: Any change in location or ownership of the plant where a previously qualified product or service was manufactured or performed requires reevaluation of the qualification. Similarly, any change in location or ownership of a previously qualified manufacturer or source requires reevaluation of the qualification. The reevaluation must be accomplished before the date of award. RFP at 14-15; FAR Sec. 52-209-1(f). The RFP incorporated the source qualification statement for this cartridge that provides for the waiver of the qualification requirements as follows: Any offeror who has had previous experience in the production of Cartridges or other similar item may apply to the design control activity for a waiver of all or part of the [qualification] requirements. A waiver will be granted only if the design control activity can establish the qualification of the offeror from previous knowledge/interface or from written inputs from the offeror. Agency Report, Tab 3e, Source Qualification Statement, Sec. C Para. 12. Offerors were advised that the agency would "utilize the Performance Price Trade-Off . . . technique" to arrive at a "best value" award decision. The application of this technique here involved determining the acceptability of each offeror's proposal (determined here by ascertaining whether the offeror "has been notified by the Government that they are a qualified source"), ranking all acceptable proposals by evaluated price, and assigning the proposals a past performance risk rating of high confidence, significant confidence, confidence, unknown confidence, little confidence, or no confidence. The solicitation added that if the lowest priced proposal had a "high confidence" past performance risk rating, then that proposal was to be considered the best value for award; otherwise, the agency would make a tradeoff determination considering the differences in past performance and price to determine which proposal represented the best value to the government. RFP at 31-32. The agency received proposals from Scot and Pac Sci Quantic. The agency evaluators referred to the agency's "Screening Analysis Worksheet" for the cartridges, which is the agency's internal list of qualified sources, and found that both Scot and Pac Sci Quantic were listed. /3/ Agency Report, Tab 10, Best Value Memorandum (Apr. 28, 2003), at 1. The agency thus evaluated both proposals as technically acceptable. The agency next determined that although Pac Sci Quantic's past performance rating was slightly higher than Scot's, the difference was negligible. The agency concluded that Pac Sci Quantic's proposal represented the best value to the government, given its significantly lower price. Id.