TITLE:  Schaeffer Eye Center, B-284268, March 20, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284268
DATE:  March 20, 2000
**********************************************************************
Schaeffer Eye Center, B-284268, March 20, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Schaeffer Eye Center

File: B-284268

Date: March 20, 2000

Jeffrey L. Sachs for the protester.

Merilee D. Rosenberg, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where contracting officer reasonably concludes that, notwithstanding a
slight difference in technical rating scores, two proposals were essentially
technically equal, selection of lower-priced proposal is unobjectionable.

DECISION

Schaeffer Eye Center protests the award of a contract to Classic Optical
Laboratories, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 247-0003-99, issued
by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for prescription eyeglasses for
eligible veterans at VA medical centers in Alabama, Georgia, and South
Carolina. Schaeffer contends that the award on the basis of Classic's
lower-priced, lower-rated technical proposal is not in accordance with the
RFP's stated evaluation scheme, which provided that technical factors were
more important than price.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a base
year and

2 option years. RFP, Statement of Work, para. 3, at 23. Offerors were to submit
technical and price proposals. RFP, Proposal Submittal Instructions, para. 1, at
30. The RFP's evaluation scheme, referencing Federal Acquisition Regulation
sect. 52.212-2 Evaluation--Commercial Items, provided that the agency "will
award a contract . . . to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to
the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and
other factors considered." RFP sect. 52.212-2(a), at 31. The following
evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were
identified: quality assurance plan (weighted at 35 points), past performance
and demonstrated capability (weighted at 30 points), personnel
qualifications (weighted at 20 points), and cost/pricing (weighted at 15
points). Id. at 31-32; Protester's Comments at 1. The lowest evaluated price
proposal was to receive the maximum points available for the cost/pricing
factor, with the remaining proposals receiving a proportion of those points
based on the relationship of their prices to the lowest price. RFP at 32.
The RFP provided that each technical factor was more important than the
cost/pricing factor, and combined, the three technical factors were
significantly more important than cost/pricing. Id.

Eight proposals were received in response to the RFP; three of the proposals
were subsequently eliminated from the competitive range after the initial
evaluation of proposals. Discussions were conducted with the remaining five
offerors and revised proposals were received and evaluated. Contracting
Officer's Statement at 1. Five evaluators independently scored the proposals
under each factor; the evaluators' scores were then averaged for each
offeror. Final Evaluation Scores at 1. The Schaeffer and Classic proposals
received slightly higher averaged technical scores than the other proposals.
Schaeffer's proposal received a slightly higher average point score than the
Classic proposal under the first two factors (quality assurance and past
performance/capability), and Classic's proposal was rated higher than
Schaeffer's for the third factor (personnel). Schaeffer's proposal received
a slightly higher average total technical score (69.28 points out of the
available 85 technical points) than the Classic proposal (which received a
technical score of 66.8 points). Classic submitted the lowest-priced
proposal (at a total price of $2,215,683.63), which received the maximum 15
points available under the cost/pricing factor; Schaeffer submitted the
highest-priced proposal of all offerors (at a total price of $2,480,268),
which received 13.4 points under the cost/pricing factor. The Schaeffer
proposal's overall combined technical and price score of 82.68 was less than
1 point higher than the Classic proposal's overall score of 81.8 (out of the
100 available evaluation points). Id. at 2.

The technical evaluation board recommended that award be made to Classic, as
the offeror submitting the proposal deemed most advantageous to the agency;
the evaluation team found "no discernable distinction between the technical
scores," and concluded that the 11-percent price differential in an award to
Classic, compared to Schaeffer's higher-priced proposal, offered
"considerable savings." Cost/Technical Tradeoff at 1-2. The contracting
officer agreed with the source selection recommendation and awarded the
contract to Classic. This protest followed.

Schaeffer contends that the award to Classic based on that firm's
lower-priced proposal is contrary to the evaluation scheme provided in the
RFP, which stated that technical factors were significantly more important
than price. Specifically, Schaeffer argues that, under the agency's weighted
evaluation factors (where quality assurance was weighted at 35 percent, past
performance/capability at 30 percent, personnel at 20 percent, and
cost/pricing at 15 percent), "technical (factors 1, 2 & 3) were 5.67 times
more important than price." Protester's Comments at 1. Schaeffer contends
that a weighted factor of 5.67 should therefore be applied to the "raw
difference of 2.48" points between the two offerors' technical proposal
scores, which, according to Schaeffer, increases the point score
differential between the proposals to an extent that cannot be considered a
minor difference. Id. Schaeffer then argues that the weighted factor of 5.67
also should be applied to the evaluated price differential between the
proposals by dividing the 11-percent differential by 5.67, reducing the
price difference between the proposals to less than 2 percent. Id. We
disagree.

Schaeffer's argument is based on a misinterpretation of the RFP's evaluation
scheme as to the weighted percentages assigned to the evaluation factors.
The agency's assignment of available points to each evaluation factor here
encompasses the appropriate weighting of the factors for purposes of the
evaluation of proposals (i.e., the number of points available for the factor
matches the stated weight of the factor, out of the 100 total points
available for the four factors). In other words, Schaeffer is incorrect in
its assertion that the 2.48 point differential between the two technical
proposals is a "raw difference" in the point scores that requires further
weighting or adjustment for the proper evaluation of proposals for award
under the RFP's evaluation scheme. Accordingly, the protester's contention
in this regard does not provide a reason to question the propriety of the
evaluation or the award.

The protester has put forth only a general challenge to the award to
Classic, namely, that the award determination improperly was based on
Classic's lower-priced proposal, where the RFP listed cost/pricing as the
least important evaluation factor. Schaeffer does not contest the
evaluators' assessments of the merits of the proposals or the evaluation
scores assigned to the proposals. Rather, the protester contends that,
because the RFP provided that technical factors were more important than
price, and Schaeffer's technical proposal received a technical score
slightly higher than that received by Classic's proposal, Schaeffer is
entitled to the award. Specifically, Schaeffer argues that "the potential
contract savings of $204,000 is not large enough to justify ignoring
Schaeffer's technically superior rated proposal point score" and that the
RFP did not provide for a source selection on the basis of the lowest
evaluated price among technically acceptable proposals. Protester's Comments
at 2.

The agency reports that no discernable distinction was found between the
proposals' technical scores, and that it did not make award on the basis of
the lowest technically acceptable proposal. Rather, the agency asserts that
it made its award determination based upon the substantial savings
associated with an award to Classic, which offered the lowest price between
essentially equal technical proposals. Agency Report at 1-3; Contracting
Officer's Statement at 1-2.

In reviewing protests of allegedly improper evaluations, our Office will
examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was
reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation scheme, and in accordance
with applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Merdan Group, Inc.,
B-231880.3, Feb. 28, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 210 at 2. In a negotiated procurement
with a best value evaluation plan, point scores are useful as guides, but
they do not mandate automatic selection of a particular proposal. Resource
Management Int'l, Inc., B-278108, Dec. 22, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 29 at 4. Whether
a given point spread between two competing proposals indicates a significant
superiority of one proposal over another depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each procurement and is primarily a matter within the
discretion of the procuring agency. Id. The question of whether a difference
in point scores is significant is for determination on the basis of what
that difference might mean in terms of contract performance and what it
would cost the government to take advantage of it. Id. Where selection
officials reasonably regard proposals as being essentially equal
technically, price can become the determining factor in making award
notwithstanding that the evaluation criteria assigned price less importance
than technical factors. The Parks Co., B-249473, Nov. 17, 1992, 92-2 CPD
para. 354 at 4.

Our review of the record, including the proposals and evaluation
documentation, provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the
agency's determination that the two proposals were essentially equal in
technical merit. As the source selection documentation provides, for the
technical evaluation factors of quality assurance and past
performance/capability, Schaeffer's proposal was rated only 2 percent higher
than Classic's proposal. Conversely, Classic's proposal was rated 5 percent
higher than Schaeffer's proposal under the personnel qualifications
criterion. Cost/Technical Tradeoff at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement at
1. Of the five evaluators who reviewed the two proposals, two of the
evaluators rated Schaeffer's proposal technically higher overall, two of the
evaluators rated Classic's proposal technically higher overall, and the last
evaluator assigned virtually the same overall technical score to both
proposals (assigning only a .3 difference in their total technical scores).
Our review of the evaluation record supports the lack of any demonstrated
technical superiority by one firm; in fact, the evaluation record is
essentially split, with approximately half of the evaluators' ratings
favoring one (and the other half of the ratings favoring the other) of the
two offerors under each of the evaluation factors.

Our review of the contemporaneous narrative evaluation findings for each of
the offers under each of the evaluation factors also does not provide any
basis to question the agency's determination of technical equality. For
instance, both offerors' proposals were credited for providing solid
documentation of their proposed approaches, extensive experience, and
personnel qualifications; Classic's proposal, in fact, was rated technically
outstanding in more evaluation areas than Schaeffer's proposal and Classic's
proposal was noted for exceeding certain important RFP requirements,
surpassing the extent by which Schaeffer's proposal exceeded the same
requirements. [1] When a selection official determines that proposals are
technically equal, it means that overall there is no meaningful difference
in what the proposals have to offer. It does not mean that the proposals are
identical in every respect; one may be superior to the other in a variety of
areas. Northern Virginia Serv. Corp., B-258036.2, B-258036.3, Jan. 23, 1995,
95-1 CPD para. 36 at 9. Here, Schaeffer does not argue with any specificity as
to what aspects of its proposal render it overall technically superior to
Classic's proposal. Rather, Schaeffer relies only on the slightly higher
technical score its proposal received to assert its claimed superiority,
which, as discussed above, is alone insufficient to question the agency's
technically equal determination. Consequently, since our review of the
record also provides no support for the protester's claimed technical
superiority, we have no basis to object to the reasonableness of the
agency's determination that the proposals were essentially technically
equal. Classic's lower evaluated price consequently served as a proper
determinative factor for award.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. A protective order was not issued in this protest, since the protester
was not represented by legal counsel. Our discussion of the evaluation
record and proposals in this decision is therefore necessarily general.