B-311403, DIT-MCO International Corporation, June 18, 2008

B-311403 Jun 18, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIT-MCO International Corporation protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Eclypse International Corporation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68335-06-R-0133, for automatic wire test sets (AWTS). DIT-MCO asserts that the agency failed to conduct an adequate best value analysis in connection with its award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-311403, DIT-MCO International Corporation, June 18, 2008 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: DIT-MCO International Corporation File: B-311403 Date: June 18, 2008 Drew W. Marrocco, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, for the protester. James H. Roberts, III, Esq., and Carrol H. Kinsey, Jr., Esq.,Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC, for the intervenor. Howard B. Rein, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency failed to conduct an adequate best value analysis is denied where award was made to the lower priced of two technically equal proposals and the protester does not timely challenge either the underlying technical or price evaluations; in a negotiated procurement with a best value evaluation award methodology, where selection officials reasonably regard proposals as being essentially equal technically, price properly may become the determining factor in making award, notwithstanding that the solicitation assigned price less importance than technical factor. DECISION DIT-MCO International Corporation protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Eclypse International Corporation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68335-06-R-0133, for automatic wire test sets (AWTS). DIT-MCO asserts that the agency failed to conduct an adequate best value analysis in connection with its award decision. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, with an ordering period of 5 years, to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the –best value— when evaluated under four factors: technical, past performance, experience and price. Technical was slightly more important than past performance, which was slightly more important than experience; technical, past performance and experience together were –significantly more important than price.— RFP at 60. However, the RFP further advised that the importance of price –will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is based.— Id. Four timely proposals were received in response to the RFP, including those of the protester and the awardee. After conducting discussions with the offerors and obtaining final proposal revisions, the Navy determined that Eclypse's proposal represented the best value. In this regard, while the agency evaluated Eclypse's and DIT-MCO's proposals as essentially equal under the non-price factors, with both proposals receiving overall technical ratings of satisfactory/low risk, as well as very low risk ratings for past performance and experience, the agency initially calculated the price of DIT-MCO's proposal as $29,605,110, nearly $6 million higher than the $23,668,807 evaluated price of Eclypse's proposal. Agency Report (AR) exh. 4, Source Selection Evaluation Board Memorandum; AR exh. 5, Source Selection Advisory Council Memorandum; AR exh. 6, Source Selection Authority Memorandum, Feb. 6, 2007; AR exh. 8, Source Selection Authority Memorandum, Mar. 12, 2008. Consistent with the best value determination, the Navy made award to Eclypse. Subsequently, during the Navy's February 12, 2008 post-award debriefing of DIT'MCO, the protester questioned the agency's price evaluation. When the agency then reexamined the proposed prices, it determined that the evaluated price of Eclypse's proposal in fact should have been $21,402,727, while that of DIT'MCO's proposal should have been $22,050,300. Since, however, the Navy continued to view both proposals as essentially equal under the non-price factors, and the evaluated price of Eclypse's proposal remained low even after the recalculation of prices, the agency determined that Eclypse's proposal continued to represent the best value. AR exhs. 4, 5, 6. On February 19, DIT-MCO filed an agency-level protest with the Navy, maintaining that the agency's best value source selection decision was arbitrary because the initial decision had been based on an inaccurate, much larger price difference, and the agency had failed to perform an adequate best value determination after recalculating the evaluated prices.