American Artisan Productions, Inc., B-293801.2, June 7, 2004

B-293801.2 Jun 07, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Artisan Productions, Inc. (AAP) protests the issuance of a purchase order to Insight Exhibits under request for quotations (RFQ) No. JSQ044023, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to design and construct a complete interpretive exhibit at a dinosaur quarry. AAP maintains that the agency misevaluated its quotation. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293801.2, American Artisan Productions, Inc., June 7, 2004 Matter of: File: Date: We deny the protest. The RFQ identified the procurement as a commercial item acquisition under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and provided that the agency would use simplified acquisition procedures contained in FAR Part 13. The selected vendor was to design, fabricate, ship, and install interior and exterior exhibits at the BLM Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry located in Utah. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order for these services to the vendor whose quotation was considered most advantageous to the government, price and other factors (technical performance and past performance) considered. Under the evaluation scheme, the technical performance and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. To assess technical performance, the RFQ advised that the vendor's approach to the project and the demonstrated creativity of key personnel proposed for this project would be evaluated. Under past performance, vendors were required to provide performance information for at least three completed design, fabrication, and/or design/fabrication projects that were the same as, or similar to, the services being solicited here. This information would be reviewed by the agency to assess the experience of each vendor's past performance in the areas of quality of product and work performed, timeliness of performance, cost control, business relations, and customer satisfaction. Eleven vendors, including AAP and Insight Exhibits, submitted quotations. A technical evaluation team reviewed and evaluated quotations under the non-price factors using a numeric scoring system. As a result, under the non-price factors, AAP received a score of 58.67 points out of a possible total of 80 points and was ranked fifth overall.[1] In evaluating AAP's quotation, the contracting officer reports that the evaluators specifically found as follows: As this project is for an interpretive display for a dinosaur quarry, it would be assumed the protester would have provided information relevant to work done focusing on paleontology exhibits. This firm was not awarded the full percentage points due to their apparent lack of extensive experience in this field. . . . . In two of the projects submitted for past performance, there appear to be cost overruns with no explanation as to why the final price is higher than the contract price. . . . Cost control was a stated element of the past performance criteria. Contracting Officer's Statement at 3-4. AAP protests these evaluation findings as inaccurate and misleading, basically arguing that its quotation reflected sufficient experience under the past performance factor on the part of the firm and its key personnel to perform the solicited services, and that its quotation was improperly downgraded on the basis of an unstated evaluation factor--that AAP lacked experience in paleontology exhibit projects. AAP also complains that the agency erred in downgrading its past performance record in the area of cost control, alleging that the agency failed to contact its listed references or AAP itself to obtain an explanation regarding cost overruns on two of its three project references. Protester's Comments at 3-6. As noted above, the procurement was conducted under simplified acquisition procedures. Simplified acquisition procedures are designed to, among other things, reduce administrative expenses, promote efficiency and economy in contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. FAR 13.002. These procedures provide discretion to contracting officers to use one or more of the evaluation procedures in FAR Parts 14 and 15. See FAR 13.106-2(b); Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, Oct. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD 167 at 8-10. When using these procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition and must evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. In reviewing protests of an allegedly improper simplified acquisition evaluation, we examine the record to determine whether the agency met this standard and exercised its discretion reasonably. Russell Enters.