BNUMBER:  B-275436
DATE:  February 20, 1997
TITLE:  Best Foam Fabricators, Inc.

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

Matter of:Best Foam Fabricators, Inc.

File:     B-275436

Date:February 20, 1997

William E. Hughes III, Esq., Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., for the 
protester.
John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Lawrence W. Kelly, Esq., Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that evaluation method provided for under Blue Ribbon Program 
(BRP) should not have been applied in lieu of Performance-Price 
Trade-Off method, and that award to Blue Ribbon Contractor at higher 
evaluated price therefore was improper, is denied where record shows 
that items were urgently needed to meet essential mission 
requirements, which is one of the circumstances under which the BRP 
may be invoked.

DECISION

Best Foam Fabricators, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Engineered Fabrics Corporation (EFC) under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. F09603-96-R-20365, issued by the Department of the Air Force for 
180 foam block assemblies for the            F-15 aircraft main fuel 
tank.

We deny the protest.

The RFP (issued May 29, 1996) contemplated award of a fixed-price 
contract, was restricted to qualified sources, and provided for the 
addition of a 10-percent evaluation factor to all offers other than 
those of small disadvantaged businesses (SDB).  See Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement  sec.  252.219-7006.  The RFP provided 
that award was to be based on the best value to the government, and 
that the Performance-Price Trade-Off (PPT) technique for determining 
best value would be applied as follows:  all technically acceptable 
offers would be ranked by evaluated price and assigned a performance 
risk rating (low, moderate or high).  If the low technically 
acceptable offer also received a low performance risk rating, it would 
be deemed the best value; if the low acceptable offer received a 
moderate or high risk rating, the source selection authority would 
"use good business judgment in making the best value award decision."

The RFP also contained Air Force Materiel Command Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (AFMCFARS)  sec.  5352.215-9003, The AFMC Blue Ribbon 
Program, and  sec.  5352.215-9004, The AFMC Blue Ribbon Program-Evaluation 
Factors for Award.  The Blue Ribbon Program (BRP), which applies to 
negotiated spare parts acquisitions such as this one, recognizes that 
responsible contractors have varying degrees of quality and delivery 
performance, and that award to the lowest evaluated price offeror is 
not always in the best interest of the government.  The BRP allows 
contractors to apply for Blue Ribbon Contractor (BRC) status, which 
involves examination of the contractor's past quality and delivery 
performance.  If a contractor is designated a BRC prior to award, the 
contracting officer may consider BRC status in the award decision.  
AFMCFARS  sec.  5315.605-90, 5352.215-9003, and 5352.215-9004.  A price 
premium of up to 10 percent (above a nonBRC's price) may be paid 
(AFMCFARS  sec.  5315.605-90(h)(6)) based on certain considerations, 
including:  "A need for the item(s) to be delivered within the time 
constraints or quality parameters stated in the solicitation, to meet 
essential mission requirements."  AFMCFARS  sec.  5352.215-9004(b). 

Best Foam and EFC were the only qualified offerors to submit 
proposals, both of which were found acceptable.  EFC's offered unit 
price was low at $3,550 ($639,000 total), and Best Foam's was $3,700 
($666,000).  However, because Best Foam is an SDB, a 10-percent 
evaluation factor was added to EFC's price, increasing it to $702,900, 
and leaving Best Foam's evaluated price low.  However, the information 
gathered by the agency for the performance risk assessment (Best Foam 
did not submit any of the required performance information) revealed a 
current workload of three contracts, two of which were delinquent, and 
three contracts over the previous 12 months (one of which was for a 
foam product), all of which were delinquent (by 200, 6, and 82 days).  
The agency was advised that two delinquencies were due to mishandling 
of material in the manufacture of life vests and life preservers, 
which did not pass quality assurance inspection; another was due to a 
change in vendors after submission of first articles, which 
necessitated a new first article and delayed production; and another 
was due to production scheduling problems.  Further, the agency was 
advised that an April 1995 pre-award survey of Best Foam resulted in a 
"no-award" recommendation due to cash-flow problems--a $150,000 
monthly shortfall and excessive liabilities, including a           $5 
million loan.  Although the agency also noted that Best Foam had 
provided the F-15 foam assemblies for many years under an 8(a) 
set-aside contract, and that quality and performance had been good, 
based on all of this information the agency assigned Best Foam's 
proposal a moderate performance risk rating.    

In contrast, EFC's proposal received a low risk rating (12 current 
contracts with     2 delinquencies; 10 contracts over the previous 12 
months, with no delinquencies).  Although EFC had not previously 
supplied foam kits directly to the government, it had supplied them to 
McDonnell Douglas, the prime contractor for the F-15, for several 
years.  EFC had also supplied the F-15 fuel tanks (for which the foam 
is required) as a prime contractor.

EFC's proposal was based on an alternative delivery schedule (as 
permitted under the RFP)--1 unit 45 days after receipt of order (ARO) 
and the balance at a rate of 20 kits per month, versus the RFP 
schedule of 180 units 30 days ARO.  Although Best Foam's proposal was 
based on the RFP schedule, the agency doubted Best Foam would be able 
to meet it in light of the firm's recent performance problems.  The 
agency held discussions with both offerors, resulting in a delivery 
schedule of 1 unit 21 days ARO, with the balance to be shipped at a 
rate of 20 kits per month.  The agency then requested best and final 
offers (BAFO).  Best Foam did not change its $666,000 price.  EFC 
reduced its total price to $610,200, evaluated as $671,220 after 
addition of the 10-percent SDB evaluation factor.  

At this juncture, the agency considered making award to EFC under the 
RFP's PPT best value approach, or requesting a pre-award survey on 
Best Foam.  However, no award could be made due to a lack of funding, 
despite the urgent need for the items and their priority status.  
Subsequently, on September 6, contracting officials were advised that 
EFC had just been certified as a BRC.  As the agency already had 
determined that this was an urgent requirement essential to meeting 
mission requirements (the RFP specifically indicated that it was 
urgent), one of the scenarios for application of the BRP, it proceeded 
to make a BRP award assessment.  In light of the minor evaluated price 
difference between the proposals ($5,220, or less than 1 percent), 
EFC's proposal was determined to be in line for award under the BRP; 
on November 7, after funding was obtained, award was made to EFC.

Best Foam alleges that it was improper to base the award on a BRP 
evaluation because, contrary to the agency's position, there in fact 
was no urgency related to meeting mission requirements, as illustrated 
by the relaxation of the delivery schedule for EFC.[1]

The BRP evaluation was reasonable.  The agency states that this 
procurement--intended to provide the items on an interim basis, 
pending deliveries under another recently awarded contract--was 
considered urgent from its inception (as illustrated by the statement 
"urgent requirement" on the front of the RFP), since the agency had 
only eight items on hand, with eight priority back orders and a demand 
rate of 15 per month.  We find no basis to question the agency's 
explanation in this regard.  We also find that the relaxation of the 
delivery schedule clearly was based on practical considerations, 
rather than a change in the procurement's urgent status.  While Best 
Foam had agreed to the RFP's delivery schedule, the agency ultimately 
determined that award to Best Foam based on the urgency of the 
requirement would make no sense given that firm's recent prior timely 
performance problems; the agency found Best Foam's mere agreement to 
the expedited schedule insufficient to overcome its concerns stemming 
from those delinquency problems.  We conclude that the agency's 
determination of urgency was reasonable, and that the BRP was 
appropiately applied;  the award to EFC, therefore, was reasonable, 
since its evaluated price was within 10 percent of Best Foam's.

In any case, there is no reason to believe that the award decision 
would have been any different under the PPT evaluation method outlined 
in the RFP.  As described above, the PPT method would permit the 
agency to balance EFC's lower performance risk against Best Foam's 
marginally lower evaluated price; this comparison presumably would 
have yielded the same result as the agency's balancing of EFC's BRC 
status against Best Foam's lower price.  In the final analysis, there 
was an overriding urgent need for the items, and Best Foam's prior 
difficulties led the agency to question whether it could provide 
delivery even within the relaxed schedule.  These concerns were proper 
under the terms of the RFP and, given these circumstances, the agency 
reasonably could make award to EFC at its slightly higher evaluated 
price under either evaluation method.

In its December 30 comments on the agency report, Best Foam maintains 
that it was denied meaningful discussions because it was not permitted 
to respond to the reports on its past performance, in violation of 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.610(c) (FAC 90-31).  Under 
our Bid Protest Regulations, protest allegations such as this must be 
raised no later than 10 days after the basis for the argument is 
known.  Section 21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)).  The agency reports that it 
advised Best Foam of its reliance on certain past performance 
references during its November 14 debriefing.  In its initial protest, 
Best Foam challenged the adequacy of discussions on other grounds 
(those arguments subsequently were abandoned), but did not argue that 
it should have been allowed to rebut performance information, and did 

not cite FAR  sec.  15.610(c).  Therefore, since this argument was not 
raised within 
10 days after the debriefing, it is untimely and will not be 
considered.  Curtis Ctr. Ltd. Partnership--Recon., B-257863.3, Mar. 
20, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  147.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Best Foam also initially argued that (1) the BRP did not apply 
because price was not the sole factor in the award decision, and (2) 
discussions with EFC improperly failed to include questioning as to 
whether EFC has maintained an adequate technical data package.  The 
agency addressed these arguments in its report, and BFF failed to 
rebut the agency's position in its comments.  Under these 
circumstances, we consider the issues abandoned.  Hi-Shear Technology 
Corp., 
B-258814.2, May 17, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  250.