B-295345, Electronic Hardware Corporation, January 28, 2005

B-295345 Jan 28, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Electronic Hardware Corporation (EHC) protests the award of a contract to Grauch Enterprises under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO500-04-R-0062, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for certain Federal Stock Class (FSC) 5355 items. The protester objects to the agency's evaluation of its and Grauch's proposals and the selection of Grauch's proposal for award. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295345, Electronic Hardware Corporation, January 28, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Electronic Hardware Corporation File: B-295345 Date: January 28, 2005 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Orest J. Jowyk, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., and Jack Y. Chu, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for the protester. Marlene M. Surrena, Esq., and Marc L. Peterson, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably evaluated proposals for price realism by comparing the line item prices proposed by each offeror to the other offerors' proposed prices and the agency's estimates, and requesting verification for each of the line item prices that appeared unrealistically low. 2. Agency reasonably evaluated the protester's and awardee's proposals under the past performance factor as –good— where the agency considered the protester's more extensive history of relevant past performance, the –good— but not –outstanding— record of the protester's performance, and the positive comments made by the awardee's references regarding its past performance. DECISION Electronic Hardware Corporation (EHC) protests the award of a contract to Grauch Enterprises under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO500-04-R-0062, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for certain Federal Stock Class (FSC) 5355 items. The protester objects to the agency's evaluation of its and Grauch's proposals and the selection of Grauch's proposal for award. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a total set-aside for small businesses, provided for the award of one or more indefinite-quantity fixed-price contracts for certain FSC 5355 items. RFP at 3, 14, 20-21. The solicitation requested unit prices and delivery terms for two lots of contract line item numbers (CLIN). Lot I, to which –source inspection applie[d],— consisted of 355 CLINs of knobs, knob assemblies, knob dials, shafts and shaft assemblies, and Lot II, to which –destination inspection applie[d],— consisted of 194 CLINs for knobs, knob assemblies, and dials, each of which was designated by a national stock number (NSN).[1] RFP at 3, 38-50. The RFP identified the estimated annual demand for each CLIN. Offerors were informed that awards would be made on an –all or none basis— by lot to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government for that particular lot, considering past performance and price. RFP at 3, 65. Offerors were also informed that the past performance factor was significantly more important than price, and was comprised of the following three subfactors listed in descending order of importance: delivery, business relations/customer satisfaction, and quality. RFP at 65. The RFP added that the agency would evaluate proposals –to determine cost/price realism,— and that –[c]ost/price realism means that the costs in the offeror's proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding on the part of the offeror of the solicitation requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's technical proposal.— RFP at 66. The RFP did not, however, require the submission of any cost data. The offerors' proposals were required to include a past performance volume and a price volume. With regard to the past performance volume, the RFP explained that –[t]he offeror's performance record will be assessed to determine if it demonstrates a level of performance that provides a reasonable assurance that the solicitation requirements will be met.— RFP at 67. The RFP requested that offerors provide –pertinent information,— such as that pertaining to the offeror's –on-time delivery record,— for evaluation under the –delivery— subfactor to the past performance factor. Id.Offerors were also instructed that they were to –include a complete list of contracts that are past due, or were extended for the convenience of the Offeror.— RFP at 61.