B-298720; B-298720.2, Midland Supply, Inc., November 29, 2006
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: Midland Supply,
Inc.
Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., and Nicole S. Allen, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., for the protester.
Adele Ross Vine, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Under solicitation providing for award to offeror whose proposal is found to be the most advantageous to the government based on past performance, delivery, and price, selection of lower technically rated, lower-priced proposal is improper where the record shows that selection decision was based on a mechanical comparison of offerors’ total point scores and lacks any documentation indicating that a price/technical tradeoff was made.
DECISION
Midland Supply, Inc. protests
the award of a contract to Danaher Tool Group under solicitation No.
6FLS-G3-050327-N, issued by the General Services Administration for quantities
of 50 commercial line items in the 5120 Federal Supply Class (handtools,
non-edged, non-powered).
The solicitation, issued on
With respect to the time of delivery, the solicitation
required that delivery be made “within 120 calendar days after receipt of order
for all items.” Solicitation at 99. The solicitation also permitted an offeror to
propose for evaluation an alternate, more favorable delivery time by inserting
in its proposal a specific number of calendar days for delivery after receipt
of order for all items.
In evaluating proposals, the agency assigned the following raw points under the three evaluation factors: excellent (5 points); good (4 points); average (3 points); and poor (0 points). These raw scores were then multiplied by the following weights: 35 percent for both past performance and delivery (for a total combined weight of 70 percent) and 30 percent for price.[1] The agency then added the weighted scores together to arrive at a total point score for each proposal.
In evaluating Midland’s past performance, the agency assigned
it a raw score of 3 points under the on-time delivery subfactor based on
Midland’s [deleted]-percent on-time delivery record. Because
In evaluating Danaher’s past performance, the agency
assigned it a raw score of 3 points under the on-time delivery subfactor based on
Danaher’s [deleted]-percent on-time delivery record. Because Danaher had no quality deficiency
notices and no terminated orders, the agency assigned it a raw score of 5
points under each of the other two past performance subfactors. The agency averaged these scores, for a final
past performance raw score of 4.34 points, the same as
The agency then multiplied the raw scores for the three
evaluation factors by the weights assigned to each of these evaluation factors,
which yielded the following results for the four top-scoring firms, including
|
Offeror A |
Offeror B |
Danaher |
|
Past Performance |
152 |
[deleted] |
[deleted] |
152 |
Delivery |
175 |
[deleted] |
[deleted] |
140 |
Price |
90 |
[deleted] |
[deleted] |
150 |
Total Point Scores |
417 |
418 |
430 |
442 |
Agency Report, Tab 10, Evaluation Chart.
The agency awarded a contract for line item No. 1 to Danaher because its proposal received the highest total point score of the 15 proposals received.
Midland challenges the agency’s decision to award line
item No. 1 to Danaher, contending that all the agency did was to mechanically
consider the total point scores assigned to the
While this is a commercial-item procurement, it was
conducted using negotiated procedures, at least in terms of the substance of
the agency’s actions.[5] Specifically, the solicitation provided that
the combination of technical evaluation factors--past performance and
delivery--would be considered significantly more important than price in
determining the proposals that were most advantageous to the government. Under this type of evaluation scheme, an
agency has the discretion to determine whether the technical advantage
associated with an offeror’s proposal is worth its higher price. The propriety of a price/technical tradeoff
turns not on the difference in the technical scores or ratings per se,
but on whether the agency’s judgment concerning the significance of the
difference is reasonable and adequately justified in light of the evaluation
scheme. Opti-Lite Optical,
B-281693,
In order for our Office to perform a meaningful review of
an agency’s award determination, the agency is required to have adequate
documentation to support its evaluation of proposals and its award
decision. Century Envtl. Hygiene,
Inc., B-279378, June 5, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 164 at 4; Biospherics,
Inc., B-278508.4 et al., Oct. 6, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 96 at 4; Arco
Mgmt. of Wash., D.C., Inc., B‑248653, Sept. 11, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 173
at 3. An award decision is not
reasonable where there is no documentation or explanation to support the
price/technical tradeoff and where the agency makes its award decision based strictly
on a mechanical comparison of the offerors’ total point scores. Universal Bldg. Maint., Inc.,
B-282456,
The evaluation record here consists of one‑paragraph
summaries of the proposals, and charts showing for each evaluation factor the
agency’s assignment of raw scores, the calculation of weighted scores, and the
total point score for each proposal. The
record lacks any documentation reflecting a meaningful comparative analysis of
proposals or any explanation of why Danaher’s lower technically rated,
lower-priced proposal was selected for award over
We recommend that the agency perform and document a
price/technical tradeoff analysis. If
the agency determines that Danaher’s proposal for line item No. 1 is not
the most advantageous to the government, we recommend that the agency terminate
for the convenience of the government Danaher’s contract for this line item and
award to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the most
advantageous. In addition, we recommend
that the agency reimburse
The protest is sustained.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] To the extent that Midland complains that the past performance and delivery evaluation factors were each weighted only 5 percent more than price even though the solicitation provided that a premium would be placed on these technical evaluation factors in relation to price, we point out that, in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, the combination of the two technical evaluation factors, each weighted at 35 percent--for a total combined weight of 70 percent--was significantly more important than price, which had a total weight of 30 percent.
[2]
With respect to the delivery evaluation factor, the agency conducted a market
survey in October 2005, in which nine firms, including
[3] With regard to price, points were assigned based on comparison to the lowest price received. Thus, for example, a raw score of 5 points was assigned to prices within 5 percent of the lowest proposed price, and a raw score of 4 points was assigned to prices within 6-10 percent of the lowest proposed price.
[4]
[5] It is not entirely clear from the record that the agency intended to conduct this commercial item acquisition using FAR Part 15 negotiated procedures, although, for example, the RFP does reference in its instructions to offerors FAR sect. 15.306(a), a provision that addresses clarifications and award without discussions.
[6]
In response to the protest, the contracting officer states that Danaher had the
highest technical score and the lowest price.
Supp. CO Statement,