BNUMBER:  B-275389
DATE:  February 14, 1997
TITLE:  USA Electronics

**********************************************************************

Matter of:USA Electronics

File:     B-275389

Date:February 14, 1997

Paul D. Anderson, for the protester.
Benjamin G. Perkins, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency selection of higher-priced offeror with a better delivery 
performance record instead of a lower-priced offeror, whose 
performance reflected delivery delinquencies, was reasonable and 
consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme, which weighed past 
performance and price equally, where there was a low inventory of the 
solicited item and the agency reasonably concluded that the awardee's 
better performance record indicated a lower delivery risk.  

DECISION

USA Electronics protests the award of a contract to Revere Electric 
Supply Co.  under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0430-96-R-2603, 
issued by the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Defense Logistics 
Agency, for up to 2,000 power inverters.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on August 6, 1996, contemplated a best value award 
based upon a comparative assessment of prices and past performance, 
which were equally weighted.  Award was to be made to the offeror with 
the lowest price and best past performance score unless the offeror 
with the best performance history did not offer the lowest price, in 
which case the government would determine the appropriate tradeoff of 
price for past performance.  Among other things, the RFP stated that 
delivery schedule/inventory status and historical delivery/quality 
problems could affect the tradeoff determination.  

The RFP included a clause advising offerors that past performance 
would be evaluated based upon an automated best value model (ABVM) 
score, which was to be calculated for each DSCR vendor on a monthly 
basis.  The clause stated that the monthly ABVM score would be made 
available to each vendor on the electronic bulletin board (EBB) by the 
15th day of the month, and provided that vendors could challenge the 
score at any time, but preferably before the next monthly scores were 
posted; vendors wanting to challenge their scores were encouraged to 
do so in a timely manner because award decisions would be based on the 
posted ABVM scores. 

The ABVM score is the average of the vendor's delivery score and 
quality score.  The delivery score is based on the vendor's delivery 
record during the 12-month period ending 60 days prior to the date the 
score is posted; items not shipped by the contract delivery date are 
considered delinquent for purposes of scoring delivery performance.  
The quality score is determined from validated contractor caused 
noncomformances during the 12-month period ending 30 days prior to the 
date of the score is posted.  

Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP.  USA submitted 
the lowest-priced offer of $352,000, and received a revised ABVM score 
of 71.3, which was based on a delivery score of 42.6 and a quality 
score of 100.[1]  Revere submitted the next lowest-priced offer of 
$355,000, with the highest ABVM score of 100 based upon perfect scores 
for delivery and quality performance.  DSCR determined that Revere's 
proposal represented the best value because its superior past 
performance, which indicated a lower delivery risk, offset the minimal 
(less than 1 percent) price difference between USA's and Revere's 
offers.[2]  In making this decision, the agency considered that there 
were back orders for this item so that timely delivery was of concern.  
Award was made to Revere on October 16.   

The record shows that USA first became cognizant of its ABVM score 
when it was apprised of the award.  In response to USA's request, it 
was provided the basis for this score.  USA's protest to our Office 
followed. 

In its initial protest, USA challenged its ABVM delivery score, 
asserting reasons why it should not have been determined delinquent on 
the delivery orders considered.  In its report, the agency revised 
USA's score, conceding that USA was not delinquent on a delivery 
order, and rebutted USA's other challenges to the ABVM score.  While 
USA still generally complains about its score, its only specific 
response to the agency's explanation concerns USA's delinquencies on 
orders assertedly in excess of the maximum order limitation of the 
relevant contract; however, USA does not deny its delinquencies on 
these orders that it accepted.[3]  Based on the record, we cannot say 
that USA's revised ABVM score of 71.3 was unwarranted.[4]     

USA protests the award selection, arguing that the agency did not 
adequately consider USA's low price and acceptable delivery record.
 
In a best value procurement, price is not necessarily controlling in 
determining the offer that represents the best value to the 
government.  Rather, that determination is made on the basis of 
whatever evaluation factors are set forth in the RFP, with the source 
selection official often required to make a cost/technical tradeoff to 
determine if one proposal's technical superiority is worth the higher 
cost that may be associated with that proposal.  In this regard, 
price/past performance tradeoffs are permitted when such tradeoffs are 
consistent with the RFP evaluation scheme.  Excalibur Sys., Inc., 
B-272017, July 12, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  13; Dragon Servs., Inc., B-255354, 
Feb. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  151.  Thus, where, as here, an RFP 
identifies past performance and price as the evaluation criteria and 
indicates that an offeror with good past performance can expect a 
higher rating than an offeror without such a record of performance, 
proposals must be evaluated on that basis, and ultimately the 
selection official must decide whether or not a higher-priced offeror 
with a better past performance rating represents the best value to the 
government.  Excalibur Sys., Inc., supra.  

Here, the RFP expressly advised offerors how ABVM scores would be 
considered in making award selections.[5]  While USA asserts that any 
low-priced offeror with an ABVM score between 70 and 100 should be 
selected because this score evidences an acceptable delivery record, 
the ABVM clause did not provide this basis for award, but stated that 
credit would be given to offerors with higher ABVM scores.

As indicated above, DSCR found the minimally higher price associated 
with the selection of Revere's proposal for award was justified, given 
Revere's perfect delivery score based on no late deliveries in the 
relevant period, which reasonably gave the agency greater confidence 
that Revere would make timely deliveries; USA's recent history of 
delinquent deliveries; and the low quantity of power inverters in the 
agency's inventory (137 back orders).  Under the circumstances, we 
find the agency's award selection reasonable and consistent with the 
RFP.  H.F. Henderson Indus., B-275017, Jan. 17, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  27.

The protest is denied.[6]

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency initially calculated USA's ABVM score to be 63, which 
was based on a delivery score of 26.  The agency revised the delivery 
score to 42.6 following the protest because it had failed to credit 
USA for timely delivery under a delivery order during the relevant 
period.  

2. In its protest report, the agency made another price/past 
performance tradeoff considering USA's revised ABVM score and 
determined that it would be the same.

3. In its comments, USA asserts that two other deliveries not 
mentioned in its initial protest should have been considered in the 
ABVM score.  This contention is untimely and not for consideration 
because it was first stated more than 10 days after USA knew, or 
should have known, its basis for protest; here, USA knew what 
deliveries were included in the ABVM score when it filed its initial 
protest.  Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 
39043 (1996) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)).

4. As set forth in the ABVM clause, vendors have ready access via the 
EBB to their ABVM scores, and the components thereof, and have the 
opportunity to request correction of the scores.  In appropriate 
circumstances, it may be found that a vendor, who did not access or 
challenge this data until after it was not selected for award, did not 
diligently pursue the information on which it bases a protest of the 
ABVM score.  See generally Automated Medical Prods. Corp., B-275835, 
Feb. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  ___.

5. To the extent USA contends that the best value evaluation scheme 
set forth in the RFP is improper, this constitutes an untimely protest 
of an alleged impropriety in a solicitation apparent prior to the time 
set for receipt of proposals, which was required to be protested 
before that time.  Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.2(a)(1), 61 Fed. Reg. 
39039, 39043 (1996) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1)).

6. USA also protests that Revere did not complete the RFP's request 
for information regarding whether it was furnishing other than 
duty-free supplies.  This is immaterial because Revere, if required, 
must pay duty and offers were evaluated on a duty-included basis; 
Revere's failure to provide this information did not affect its legal 
obligations or its contract price.  See Tektronix, Inc., B-207475.3, 
Nov. 17, 1982, 82-2 CPD  para.  452.