B-297553, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., February 15, 2006

B-297553 Feb 15, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. protests the award of a contract to IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 061-M-APHIS-04, issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Department of Agriculture, for bovine spongiform encepalopathy (BSE) testing systems and test kits. Bio-Rad argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection of IDEXX's proposal for award were unreasonable. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-297553, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., February 15, 2006 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: Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. File: B-297553 Date: February 15, 2006 John E. Jensen, Esq., and Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. John G. Horan, Esq., and Jason A. Carey, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., the intervenor. Mark G. Garrett, Esq., and Elin M. Dugan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where a solicitation failed to disclose the relative weight of the listed subfactors of the primary technical factor, the subfactors should have been considered approximately equal in weight, even though the procurement was intended to be conducted using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13 simplified acquisition procedures and FAR sect. 13.106-1(a)(2) states that the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors need not be disclosed in a solicitation, because the solicitation did not indicate that the acquisition was being conducted under FAR Part 13 and the acquisition was conducted in a manner that was not distinguishable from a negotiated acquisition conducted under FAR Part 15, which requires that the relative weights of the evaluation factors and subfactors be stated in the solicitation. 2. Agency's selection of a proposal for award was unreasonable where the solicitation was silent as to the relative weights of the subfactors of the primary technical evaluation factor, and the agency, rather than treating the subfactors as equal in weight in evaluating the relative merits of the competing proposals, considered the subfactors as listed in descending order of importance. 3. Agency failed to evaluate proposals reasonably or in accordance with the terms of the solicitation's past performance and organizational experience evaluation factor where the undocumented and conclusory evaluation evidences that the agency did not meaningfully evaluate the organizational experience component of this factor. 4. Agency's evaluation of the large business awardee's proposal as –neutral— or –satisfactory— under the solicitation's evaluation factor considering the participation of small disadvantaged businesses and other types of small businesses was unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation, where the proposal stated that there would not be any such participation in contract performance. DECISION Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. protests the award of a contract to IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 061-M-APHIS-04, issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Department of Agriculture, for bovine spongiform encepalopathy (BSE) testing systems and test kits.[1] Bio-Rad argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection of IDEXX's proposal for award were unreasonable. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND Since the BSE testing system was considered to be a commercial item, the RFP was issued as an acquisition for a commercial item incorporating the special requirements applicable to the acquisition of commercial items. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed'price contract with both definite-quantity and indefinite-quantity line items to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the government, based upon the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical capability of the item offered to meet the Government requirement, past performance and organizational experience, small disadvantaged business participation, and price. [2] RFP at 18, 35, 51. Offerors were referred to the RFP's proposal preparation instructions for information regarding the specifics of the agency's intended evaluation under each of the evaluation factors. RFP at 35. In this regard, the solicitation included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and requested that offerors submit separate technical and business proposals.