B-400154, Commercial Window Shield, July 2, 2008

B-400154 Jul 02, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Commercial Window Shield (CWS) protests the issuance of an order to SOLAR Security Films under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RGSMD121107, issued by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for providing and installing security film on windows at various EPA facilities. CWS challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation and best value award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-400154, Commercial Window Shield, July 2, 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: Commercial Window Shield File: B-400154 Date: July 2, 2008 Christopher Hensien, Esq., Kevin J. Kenney & Associates, Ltd., for the protester. Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly evaluated vendor's quotation is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the request for quotations and the protester's arguments reflect mere disagreement with the agency's technical judgments. DECISION Commercial Window Shield (CWS) protests the issuance of an order to SOLAR Security Films under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RGSMD121107, issued by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for providing and installing security film on windows at various EPA facilities. CWS challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation and best value award decision. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued on December 11, 2007 to vendors on General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 56, provided for the issuance of a fixed-price order to provide and install security film to windows at various EPA facilities. An order was to be issued to the vendor whose quotation was evaluated as the –best value— to the government, considering four technical evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) approach and schedule, (2) experience, (3) organization and staffing, and (4) past performance, as well as price. When combined, the technical evaluation factors were more important than price. Five quotations, including those from CWS and SOLAR, were received and evaluated. CWS and SOLAR were the two highest technically rated vendors. CWS received technical ratings of –above average— under the first two technical factors (approach and schedule, and experience), a rating of –average— under the third factor (organization and staffing), and a rating of –outstanding— under the fourth factor (past performance). Overall, CWS was rated as –above average— and had a total evaluated price of $313,473. SOLAR was also rated –above average— overall and had a substantially lower total evaluated price of $210,842.53. Given CWS's and SOLAR's overall technical ratings of –above average— and SOLAR's lower price, the agency determined that the quotation submitted by SOLAR represented the best value. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Source Selection Determination. After learning of the agency's decision to issue the order to SOLAR, CWS filed this protest. In its protest, CWS argues that the EPA's evaluation of its quotation under the first three technical evaluation factors was flawed. Specifically, under the first technical evaluation factor (approach and schedule), CWS challenges the EPA's conclusion that its proposed schedule failed to provide details on the major activities at each site and was therefore inadequate. Under the second factor (experience), CWS contends that the –above average— rating it received cannot be reconciled with its –outstanding— rating under the past performance factor since the EPA considered the same information under both factors. Regarding its –average— rating under the third factor (organization and staffing), CWS contends the EPA unreasonably determined that its quotation created a performance risk by failing to identify the installers who will be working on the EPA sites and how the installers are selected. Lastly, CWS asserts that the EPA's selection decision was inconsistent with the RFQ because it was –based upon the lowest-priced, technically acceptable submission— instead of a tradeoff between the technical factors and price. In reviewing protests of an agency's evaluation, our Office does not reevaluate vendors' quotations; rather, we review the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. See GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, B-298102, B-298102.3, June 14, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 96 at 6; RVJ Int'l, Inc., B'292161, B-292161.2, July 2, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 124 at 5.