B-299931; B-299931.2, GlassLock, Inc., October 10, 2007

B-299931; B-299931.2, GlassLock, Inc., October 10, 2007 TITLE: B-299931; B-299931.2, GlassLock, Inc., October 10, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299931; B-299931.2 DATE: October 10, 2007 ******************************************************* B-299931; B-299931.2, GlassLock, Inc., October 10, 2007 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: GlassLock, Inc. File: B-299931; B-299931.2 Date: October 10, 2007 Robert S. Brams, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for the protester. Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Under a solicitation for competitive quotations issued under the Federal Supply Schedule program that only provided for vendors to submit prior experience/past performance references for the past 5 years, an agency improperly considered and awarded strengths, based on information provided by the successful vendor with its quotation, for projects that were completed more than 5 years ago. 2. Agency failed to evaluate quotations reasonably or in accordance with the solicitation where strengths relating to the successful vendor's experience and past performance were assigned under the project plan/schedule technical factor, which did not encompass evaluation of the vendor's experience and past performance, and where the solicitation contained a separate evaluation factor for experience/past performance under which the successful vendor received consideration for its experience/past performance. 3. Under solicitation for competitive quotations issued under the Federal Supply Schedule program that provided for a tradeoff analysis with technical factors being more important than price, agency improperly based issuance of an order on the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation. DECISION GlassLock, Inc. protests the award of a task order to Commercial Window Shield (CWS) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-DC-07-00168, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the procurement and installation of window retrofits for window glass fragment retention in 15 EPA facilities in the United States and Puerto Rico.[1] GlassLock argues that the agency's evaluation of CWS's quotation and the selection of that quotation for award were unreasonable. We sustain the protests. BACKGROUND The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-priced order based upon a competition among Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the vendor representing the "best value," and listed, in descending order of importance, prior experience/past performance on similar projects, project plan/schedule, and organization and staffing as the technical evaluation factors; the technical factors combined were said to be more important than price.[2] RFQ at 1-3. The solicitation requested that vendors provide price offers on two different options: (1) security film with attachment systems and (2) security film only; the RFQ stated that the EPA would choose the option it determined to be the best value to the Government. RFQ at 1. The agency received quotations from three vendors, including CWS and GlassLock, by the RFQ's closing date. GlassLock's quotation was evaluated as [DELETED] by the TEP under each of the three technical factors and overall, with a total price for option No. 2 of [DELETED] AR, Tab 5, TEP Report, at 2-4; Tab 6, Source Selection Decision, at 3. CWS's quotation received from the TEP an [DELETED] rating for the prior experience/past performance on similar projects factor, an [DELETED] rating for the project plan/schedule factor, and an [DELETED] rating for the organization and staffing factor, with an overall rating of "above average" and a total price for option No. 2 of [DELETED][3] AR, Tab 5, TEP Report, at 5-7; Tab 6, Source Selection Decision, at 3. Because of the "huge cost difference between" the vendors' option No. 2 prices, the agency contacted CWS to review its pricing, ensure there were no errors, and provide a price breakdown to account for these differences. Based on its review of the information provided and after a further conversation with one of CWS's references, the agency determined that CWS could successfully perform the work at its quoted price. AR, Tab 6, Source Selection Decision, at 3-4. The agency determined that because of budget constraints option No.