Export 220Volt, Inc. (N0040623R0055)

B-422216 Feb 27, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Export 220Volt, Inc., of Houston, Texas, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Babco International, Inc., of Tucson, Arizona, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N0040623R0055, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for household appliances. The protester contends that the agency failed to evaluate quotations in accordance with the evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. View Decision To try a possibly improved version of this application go here Take the word document of a bid protest and save to "filtered-html" Browse for the .htm file then click "Generate HTML" Paste the HTML into PMR ( may need some final additions such as indentations and boldings ) File: No file chosen preserve indenting: preserve fontsize: Decision Matter of: Export 220Volt, Inc. File: B-422216 Date: February 27, 2024 Paula K. Thakkar, Export 220Volt, Inc., for the protester. Trevor Davies, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s source selection decision is denied where the agency’s award decision was not inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, and where the protester suffered no competitive prejudice. DECISION Export 220Volt, Inc., of Houston, Texas, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Babco International, Inc., of Tucson, Arizona, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N0040623R0055, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for household appliances. The protester contends that the agency failed to evaluate quotations in accordance with the evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFQ on August 25, 2023, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.[1] AR, Tab A, RFQ at 1; COS/MOL at 2. The RFQ contemplated a fixed-price, brand name or equal, delivery order for household appliances, including washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, electrical ranges, and microwaves for military family housing at the Commander Fleet Activities Yokosuka (CFAY) naval installation in Japan. RFQ at 3, 5-6. Award would be made to the quotation that represented the best value to the government with “price and other factors considered.” Id. at 3. The Navy received quotations from three vendors, including Export 220 and Babco. COS/MOL at 3. The agency found that Babco offered the lowest price of the three vendors, at $227,915.00. AR, Tab B, BCM at 5; COS/MOL at 3. After evaluating Babco’s quotation as technically acceptable, the Navy evaluated Babco’s past performance as part of its responsibility determination and found that Babco represented the best value to the government. COS/MOL at 3; AR, Tab B, BCM at 5, 7-8. Based on the Navy’s findings that Babco was a responsible vendor with the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) quotation, the agency issued the order to Babco. AR, Tab B, BCM at 10; COS/MOL at 3-4. In an email from the agency on November 16, 2023, the protester learned that the Navy had issued the order to Babco, in part, because of Babco’s low price. Req. for Dismissal, Enclosures at 25. Export 220 filed a protest with our Office on November 21. DISCUSSION The protester alleges that the agency’s source selection decision was inconsistent with the RFQ’s evaluation scheme. Specifically, Export 220 contends that the solicitation language required the agency to perform a best-value tradeoff, and instead, the Navy issued the order on an LPTA basis.[2] Protest at 2, 6. The agency responds that the solicitation did not require the Navy to perform a tradeoff analysis and that its source selection decision was reasonable. COS/MOL at 5. Best Value As stated, Export 220 argues the RFQ required the agency to use a best-value tradeoff source selection methodology in making its award decision. In this regard, the parties disagree on whether the solicitation’s basis of award required the agency to perform a best-value tradeoff in making award, or whether the agency was permitted to make award to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation. We note at the outset that the solicitation here does not contain a specific basis of award selection and is neither well drafted nor is it a model of clarity. See FAR 8.405‑1(d)(2). For example, the RFQ provides that the government would issue the order to the vendor whose quotation represented the best value to the government, “price and other factors considered.” RFQ at 3. Those “other factors,” however, are not expressly stated anywhere in the solicitation. The entirety of the RFQ’s basis for award is as follows: Award will be made to the quote/offer that represents the best value to the Government.