B-298572, Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc., October 4, 2006

B-298572 Oct 04, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc. protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Ogilvy Public Relations under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-06-132, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt, for public relations services. The protester contends that the agency made an improper source selection decision by awarding the BPA to Ogilvy based on that vendor's higher technically rated and higher-priced quotation. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298572, Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc., October 4, 2006 Decision Matter of: Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc. File: B-298572 Date: October 4, 2006 Isabel Kaldenbach-Montemayor and Robin Buckley for the protester. David T. Copenhaver, Esq., and Mary Schaffer, Esq., Bureau of the Public Debt, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging award to a higher technically rated, higher priced vendor is denied where the solicitation provided that technical merit was more important than price and the agency's procurement record provided a reasonable basis for the award decision. DECISION Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc. protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Ogilvy Public Relations under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-06-132, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt, for public relations services. The protester contends that the agency made an improper source selection decision by awarding the BPA to Ogilvy based on that vendor's higher technically rated and higher-priced quotation.[1] We deny the protest. The RFQ contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) BPA, and sought quotations for provision of public relations educational activities in support of the agency's TreasuryDirect program. The RFQ limited competition to vendors who hold contracts under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) for the required services. The RFQ advised prospective vendors that quotations would be evaluated on the basis of three factors--technical, past performance, and price--advised offerors that –[t]echnical merit, including past performance, is of greater value than price,— and stated that award would be based on the quotation that provided the –best overall value to the government.— RFQ at 10-11. The agency received 11 quotations responding to the RFQ. Thereafter, the agency established a competitive range consisting of the four most highly rated vendors, including Buckley and Ogilvy, and conducted discussions with those vendors. In conducting discussions with Buckley, the agency identified aspects of Buckley's quotation that caused the quotation to receive less than the highest technical evaluation score. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Source Selection Decision (SSD) Memorandum, at 2. During discussions the agency also requested that the competitive range vendors –sharpen their pencils— by submitting revised pricing for the five FSS labor categories that the agency believed would be most likely ordered under the BPA. AR, Tab 9, E-mail from Agency Contract Specialist to Vendors, June 19, 2006. Following receipt of the revised quotations, the agency evaluated Buckley's and Ogilvy's quotations as follows:[2] Price[3] Total Technical Score Buckely $130,625.00 120 Ogilvy $149,812.50 130 AR, Tab 10, SSD Memorandum, at 3, 5; Contracting Officer's Statement at 4. Based on its evaluation of the final revised quotations, the agency determined that Ogilvy's quotation provided the best overall value to the government, and selected that firm for award. Id. at 5. Buckley contends that the agency's SSD was flawed because it resulted in award to a vendor whose price was approximately 12 percent higher than Buckley's, despite having only an approximately 7 percent higher technical score. Source selection officials in negotiated procurements have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of the technical and price evaluation results; price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Atteloir, Inc., B-290601, B-290602, Aug. 12, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 160 at 5. As part of the source selection process, the evaluation ratings of offerors' proposals, whether numeric, color or adjectival, are but guides to, and not substitutes for, intelligent decisionmaking; they do not mandate automatic selection of a particular proposal. Jacobs COGEMA, LLC, B-290125.2, B-290125.3, Dec. 18, 2002, 2003 CPD para. 16 at 31. Here, as noted above, the solicitation provided that technical merit was more important than price.