BNUMBER:  B-281503 
DATE:  February 18, 1999
TITLE: The Production Company, B-281503, February 18, 1999
**********************************************************************

Matter of:The Production Company

File:     B-281503

Date:February 18, 1999

Nancy H. Stark for the protester.
Lyman Goon, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's issuance of an order to vendor that submitted lower-rated, 
lower-priced quotation in a best value procurement (where request for 
quotations stated that price was secondary to the three technical 
factors combined) is unobjectionable  where the contracting officer 
performed a rational assessment of the competing quotations and 
reasonably determined that the price premium associated with the 
protester's higher-rated, higher-priced quotation was not justified 
given the acceptable level of technical capability available at the 
lower price.

DECISION

The Production Company protests the issuance of an order to The A'Hern 
Group under Social Security Administration request for quotations 
(RFQ) No. SSA-RFQ-
98-3542, a commercial item acquisition.  The protester argues that it 
should have received the order because its quotation was rated the 
highest technically.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ requested quotations for the production of a videotape 
explaining the Social Security Administration's policy on adjudicating 
disability claims involving neurological laboratory tests.  The RFQ 
basically advised that the order would be issued to the vendor which 
represented the best overall value to the Government.  The RFQ further 
stated that "[m]eeting the requirements of the statement of work and 
experience and past performance, when combined [were] the most 
important factors for award.  Price is secondary."  RFQ Addendum l, at 
29.  Vendors were also required to submit with their quotation a 
videotape containing three 10-minute segments from three different 
video programs produced by the offeror in the past 
5 years. The videotape was to be evaluated for creativity and 
technical quality.  Id.

The Social Security Administration received seven quotations.  After 
evaluation of the quotations by the evaluation review panel (ERP), 
only the quotations of Production and A'Hern were found acceptable.  
The ERP awarded Production the highest possible score of 5 (on a scale 
of 0 to 5) under each evaluation factor-- compliance with the SOW 
requirements, experience, and past performance.  Production also 
received a score of 5 for its videotape presentation, and an overall 
rating of 5.  The ERP noted that Production had done an excellent job 
in producing similar medically-related videos for the agency and that 
its scriptwriter/director's extensive experience in this area would 
ensure the production of a high quality videotape under any award.  
The ERP strongly recommended that Production be given the work.  
A'Hern's quotation received scores of 5 for experience and past 
performance.  However, A'Hern was given an overall score of 4 because 
of the  score of 3 given its videotape presentation.  The ERP found 
that "[t]he sample video was of acceptable quality . . . [h]owever, a 
form was used at one point, which the viewer could not clearly discern 
what was on it."  Further, the "presentation of the information was 
not linear enough for the subject material being presented, which was 
somewhat confusing."  The ERP found that A'Hern had extensive 
experience with various governmental agencies, having "produced 100s 
of films and videotapes . . . over the past 30 years."  It also 
received favorable past performance ratings from clients on prior 
contracts.  Technical Evaluation Report, Sept. 29, 1998, at 1-3.  
Production's price was $56,619; A'Hern's price was $31,527.  Summary 
of Award Without Discussions at 4.  

The contracting officer (the source selection official) determined 
that "it was not in the government's best interest to pay an 
additional $25,000 for the services, by making an award to the highest 
technically acceptable offeror the Production Company."  She noted 
that "[t]he project team believes the [A'Hern] Group can provide the 
services as required by our solicitation at the prices quoted."  
Summary of Award Without Discussions at 5.  The record also shows 
that, prior to making her selection decision, the contracting officer 
asked the project officer, who was a member of the ERP, for her 
overall evaluation of A'Hern.  The project officer responded that 
"this is to confirm that I do believe the A'Hern Group has a good 
understanding of our requirements [necessary] to produce the . . . 
videotape, based on the information they have submitted."  Contracting 
Officer E-Mail Query and Fax, Sept. 10, 1998.
 
Production protests the contracting officer's best value determination 
as unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFQ's statement that the 
technical factors combined were the most important factors and that 
price was secondary.  It contends that price was improperly used to 
override the importance of the technical evaluation, including the 
videotape evaluation.  Production Comments, Dec. 22, 1998, at 1-4.  
Production argues that A'Hern's videotape--which, the protester 
contends, should be the most reliable means of determining a company's 
skills, experience, and capabilities-- received a score of, at best, 
adequate, and therefore the contracting officer unreasonably concluded 
that A'Hern's quotation represented the best overall value to the 
agency.  Id. at 4-7.

Notwithstanding, as here, a solicitation's emphasis on technical 
merit, an agency  may properly select a lower-priced, lower 
technically scored quotation if it decides that the price premium 
involved in selecting a higher-rated, higher-priced quotation is not 
justified given the acceptable level of technical competence available 
at the lower price.  See Dayton T. Brown, Inc., B-229664, Mar. 30, 
1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  321 at 4.  The determining element is not the 
difference in technical merit, per se, but the contracting agency's 
judgment concerning the significance of that difference.  Id. at 4-5.  
In this regard, evaluation scores are merely guides for the source 
selection authority, who must use his or her judgment to determine 
what the technical difference between the competing quotations might 
mean to performance of the work, and who must consider what it would 
cost to take advantage of it.  See Grey Adver., Inc., B-184825, May 
14, 1976, 76-1 CPD  para.  325 at 9-10.  In making such determinations, the 
source selection authority has broad discretion, and the extent to 
which technical merit may be sacrificed for price or vice versa, is 
limited only by the requirement that the tradeoff decision be 
reasonable in light of the established evaluation and source selection 
criteria.  Id. at 12.

The contracting officer's selection of A'Hern was reasonable.  Here, 
the contracting officer, cognizant that placing an order with 
Production would be at a price significantly higher (84 percent 
higher) than A'Hern's price, reviewed the evaluation record to 
determine whether paying the price premium was justified.  Her review 
showed that both firms received the highest possible scores for 
experience and past performance.  She noted that the difference in the 
overall rating was the rating of the sample video--Production received 
a perfect score and A'Hern received a "3."  She reviewed the ERP's 
specific concerns with A'Hern's videotape presentation, and concluded 
that "[t]his objection appeared to me to be one which could be readily 
corrected by editing and inspection of the training tape."  She 
further noted A'Hern's "breadth of experience" in producing hundreds 
of government training films dating back to 1948.  She determined that 
A'Hern understood the statement of work and what would be required of 
the firm and that the hours and tasks that A'Hern proposed to 
accomplish these requirements were reasonable and could be 
accomplished at its quoted price.  Based on her review of the 
evaluation record, she concluded that the firm was capable of 
producing an acceptable product. Contracting Officer's Declaration at 
1-3; Summary of Award without Discussions at 5.  She also discussed 
A'Hern's capabilities with the project officer.  Contracting Officer 
E-Mail Query and Fax, supra.  

In sum, the contracting officer determined that A'Hern could produce a 
videotape consistent with the statement of work at a substantially 
lower price.  Although Production obviously disagrees with the 
contracting officer's tradeoff decision, there is nothing in the 
record to establish that the contracting officer's decision was not 
consistent with the record or an abuse of discretion.  See CVB Co., 
B-278478.4, Sept. 21, 1998, 99-1 CPD  para.  ___.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States