Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Defense Logistics Agency
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Best Value
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: The protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable or that its trade-off in best value determination was unreasonable.
Emerson Company (Emerson) protests the issuance of a purchase order under a request for quotations (RFQ), issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for vehicle seats.
The RFQ, issued as a small business set-aside, advised vendors that the source selection was to be based on a best value determination considering past performance, offered delivery, and price. The RFQ requested delivery 180 days after the date of order and stated that the requirement was urgently needed to support the war fighters. Past performance was to be evaluated using the Automated Best Value System (ABVS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Both are computer-based databases containing vendors’ past performance history. The systems use a numerical scale ranging from 0 (low) to 100 (high).
Although Emerson’s proposal was the lowest priced and the shortest delivery period, its ABVS score was 52.1 with a delivery score of 4.2 and PPIRS gave Emerson a delivery score of 0. The contracting officer went with another offeror since the other offeror’s scores showed less performance risk and a more solid record of performance.
Emerson argues that DLA improperly awarded the purchase order to a vendor whose quotation was higher in price and included a longer delivery schedule. GAO states that, in reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it will not reevaluate the quotations. Rather, GAO examines the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable, and in accord with the RFQ criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. The protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.
The record shows that Emerson had previously received a purchase order on this item, and after asking the agency for a delivery extension, still managed to deliver the product more than two months after the extended delivery date established in the modified RFQ. The record also shows that the contracting officer considered the differences in vendors’ quoted prices and reasonably found that Emerson’s lower-priced quotation and shorter proposed delivery schedule was not worth the higher performance risk, given Emerson’s history of not delivering in a timely manner. The protest is denied.