TITLE:  Beacon Auto Parts, B-287483, June 13, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287483
DATE:  June 13, 2001
**********************************************************************
Beacon Auto Parts, B-287483, June 13, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Beacon Auto Parts

File: B-287483

Date: June 13, 2001

Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., for the protester.

Scott Westerchil, Esq., Anderson & Westerchil, for Nash Auto and Body Shop,
the intervenor.

Jerry Ann T. Foster, Esq., and George Barclay, Esq., General Services
Administration, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal, submitted in response to
a solicitation for maintenance, repair, and overhaul of vehicles, is
unobjectionable where the protester provides no basis to find unreasonable
the agency's determinations regarding the qualifications of the protester's
proposed on-site manager, tools and equipment, and past performance.

2. Protest challenging the agency's best value source selection is sustained
where the record shows that the agency failed to consider whether the
awardee's higher-rated proposal was worth its higher price.

DECISION

Beacon Auto Parts protests the award of a contract to Nash Auto and Body
Shop under request for proposals (RFP) No. 7FXI-T6-01-S27-N, issued by the
General Services Administration (GSA) for the maintenance, repair, and
overhaul of GSA-owned vehicles assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana. Beacon
protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal and that the agency did not
consider price in selecting Nash's higher-priced proposal for award.

We deny the protest in part and sustain it in part.

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity contract for a base period of 1 year with two 1-year
options. RFP at 3, 29. The contractor will be required to furnish all labor,
parts, equipment, tools, and supervision to inspect, maintain, and repair
770 GSA-owned vehicles located at Fort Polk. RFP at 3, 17. The solicitation
stated that award would be made "to the responsible offeror whose offer
conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government,
price and other factors considered." RFP at 58. The RFP listed the following
evaluation factors:

  1. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors

  A. On-Site Manager's Resume/Commitment Letter
  B. Motor Vehicle Mechanic's Resume/Commitment Letter
  C. Tools/Equipment/Manuals

  2. 2. Past Performance Evaluation Factors
  3. A. Offeror's/On-Site Manager's Qualifications and Monthly Vehicle Rate

  A. Parts Suppliers/Commitment Letter

Id. The RFP specified that the technical capability factors were more
important than the past performance factors, and that these "non-cost"
factors were significantly more important than price. RFP at 59.

The agency received proposals from Beacon and Nash (the incumbent
contractor) by the RFP's closing date. The proposals were reviewed by the
agency to determine whether they included the information required by the
RFP. Agency Report, Tabs 4 & 6, Initial Proposal Review. The agency
subsequently identified five areas for Beacon and two for Nash, where their
proposals failed to include the information required by the solicitation,
and informed the offerors of these areas. For example, the agency found that
neither offeror had submitted a letter of commitment signed by its proposed
on-site manager, and that Beacon's proposal did not include with its past
performance information the types of vehicles maintained or provide the
names addresses or telephone numbers of its references. Agency Report, Tabs
5 & 7, Letters to Beacon and Nash (Mar. 1, 2001).

Beacon and Nash provided the information requested by the agency, and the
agency forwarded past performance survey questionnaires to three of the
eight past performance references provided by Beacon, and to three of the
four references listed by Nash. Agency Report, Tab 2, Nash's proposal at
79A-B; Tab 3, Beacon's Proposal at 79; Tab 9, Beacon's Response to Agency
(Mar. 7, 2001); Tabs 10 & 11, Agency Letters to Offerors' Past Performance
References. The agency received the completed surveys from the references,
and evaluated the offerors' proposals.

Nash's proposal received [DELETED] out of [DELETED] points under the
technical capability evaluation factors and [DELETED] out of [DELETED]
points under the past performance factors for a total score of [DELETED] out
of [DELETED] points, at an evaluated price of $648,958. Agency Report, Tab
13, Evaluator Scoresheets for Nash's Proposal; Tab 16, Price Negotiation
Memorandum. Beacon's proposal received [DELETED] points under the technical
capability evaluation factors and [DELETED] points under the past
performance factors for a total score of [DELETED] points, at an evaluated
price of $608,095. Agency Report, Tab 12, Evaluator Worksheets for Beacon's
Proposal; Tab 16, Price Negotiation Memorandum. The agency determined that
Nash's proposal represented "the best value to the Government based on past
performance and technical capability," and made award to that firm. Agency
Report, Tab 16, Price Negotiation Memorandum,
at 4.

Beacon first argues that the evaluation of its proposal under the technical
capability evaluation factors was unreasonable.

The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the
contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its needs
and the best method of accommodating them. Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc.,
B-247150.2, July 13, 1992,
92-2 CPD para. 16 at 5. In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not
reevaluate proposals, but instead will examine the agency's evaluation to
ensure it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated
evaluation criteria. MAR Inc., B-246889, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 367 at 4.
An offeror's mere disagreement with an agency's evaluation does not render
the evaluation unreasonable. McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2,
B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 51 at 18.

Beacon specifically argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposed
on-site manager's resume was unreasonable, given that its proposed on-site
manager "has a total of nine (9) years experience in the automotive
industry" with 5 of those years under a GSA contract. Protester's Comments,
attach. 1, at 1. The record reflects that the agency reviewed the number of
years of experience provided on the resumes of the offerors' on-site
managers as an element of the first technical capability evaluation factor.
Beacon's proposal received [DELETED] of the [DELETED] points allocated to
this element, and Nash's proposal received [DELETED] points based upon its
proposed manager's 19 years of experience. Agency Report, Tabs 12 & 13,
Evaluator Scoresheets. Beacon has not explained why the agency's slightly
higher scoring of Nash's proposal, on the basis that Nash's proposed on-site
manager had more years of experience than Beacon's, was unreasonable.

Beacon also argues that its proposal was unreasonably evaluated under the
Tools/Equipment/Manuals technical capability factor, where its proposal
received [DELETED] out of the [DELETED] points available.

The agency found in reviewing Beacon's initial submission that Beacon's
proposal failed to include any information regarding the requirement for
pneumatically operated chassis lubrication or front-end alignment equipment
as required by the RFP. RFP at 80; Agency Report, Tab 2, Beacon's Proposal
at 80; Tab 4, Initial Proposal Review of Beacon's Proposal at 5. The agency
specifically pointed this out in the letter sent to Beacon after the
agency's initial review of proposals. Agency Report, Tab 5, Letter to Beacon
(Mar. 1, 2001), at 2-3. The agency quoted the relevant section of the RFP
(at 60) in its letter to Beacon as follows:

If the offeror does not own the tools/equipment/manuals, the offeror must
indicate on the exhibit whether they intend to lease, purchase or
sub-contract out the service when subcontracting is allowed. For leases or
purchases of the tools/equipment/manual, the offeror must provide a signed
and dated commitment letter from the company or person from which they
intend to use. For services that will be sub-contracted out instead of
leasing or purchasing the tools/equipment/manuals, the offeror must provide
a signed and dated commitment letter from their proposed subcontractor that
state[s] the subcontractor[] agrees to provide[] the service to you during
the continuous of the contract.

Beacon responded by stating that it would purchase the required chassis
lubrication equipment from a specified vendor, and would subcontract the
wheel alignment services to another specified vendor. These notations
included references to attachments, which consisted of a letter from the
vendor identified for the chassis lubrication equipment stating only that it
was a supplier to Beacon, and a notation on a repair order from the vendor
identified for the alignment services stating that "yes we will Except your
Alignment Business on a Monthly Billing Acct." Agency Report, Tab 9,
Beacon's Response to Agency's Request (Mar. 7, 2001).

The agency determined that neither the letter that only identified the
vendor as a supplier of Beacon, nor the notation on the repair order,
constituted acceptable letters of commitment in accordance with the terms of
the solicitation. The agency points out here that the letter from the vendor
identified for the chassis lubrication equipment does not mention anything
regarding a sale of the requisite equipment to Beacon, and the notation from
the vendor identified for the alignment services fails to provide any
timeframes, estimates, or other specifics.

Beacon concedes that the letter it supplied from the vendor referenced for
the chassis lubrication equipment was deficient. The protester points out,
however, that it has had a "successful business relationship" with the
vendor "for the past twenty (20) years," and that Beacon has "always
purchased the necessary items to fulfill our obligations." [1] Protester's
Comments, attach. 1, at 1.

As quoted above, the RFP required that an offeror submit "signed and dated
commitment letters" from the identified vendors if the offeror proposed to
purchase the required equipment or subcontract out for services. Because an
agency's evaluation is dependent upon the information furnished in a
proposal, it is the

offeror's burden to furnish an adequately written proposal for the agency to
evaluate. See GEC-Marconi Elec. Sys. Corp., B-276186, B-276186.2, May 21,
1997, 97-2 CPD

para. 23 at 7. Here, the record reflects that the agency reasonably considered
Beacon's submissions inadequate in this regard, and Beacon's contentions
thus provide no basis to sustain its protest of the evaluation of its
proposal under this factor. [2]

Beacon argues that its proposal was unreasonably evaluated under the
offeror's/on-site manager's qualifications and monthly vehicle rate past
performance evaluation factor.

As mentioned previously, the agency randomly selected three of Beacon's
eight past performance references and sent the selected references past
performance surveys. Agency Report, Tab 16, Price Negotiation Memorandum.
Each of the references completed the survey, with one reference rating
Beacon as "outstanding" overall, another as "good" overall, and the third as
"poor" overall. The agency considered the references' responses, and
assigned scores under the offeror's/on-site manager's qualification and
monthly vehicle rate evaluation factor of [DELETED], [DELETED], and
[DELETED] points out of [DELETED] points, based upon the responses, for an
average score of [DELETED] points.

Beacon contends that it should not have received an overall rating of "poor"
from the third reference. In doing so, Beacon states that it "cannot
understand how our overall performance could be rated poor when we were
never written up for anything," and points out that its "on-site personnel
had worked for other contractors for five (5) years, and had no problems."
Protester's Comments, attach. 1, at 1-2.

Contrary to the protester's assertion that it was "never written up for
anything," an attachment provided by the protester with its comments on the
agency report supports the reference's conclusion regarding the quality of
Beacon's performance on which Beacon received an overall rating of "poor."
Specifically, the attachment includes numerous memoranda addressed to
Beacon's project manager, prepared during the performance of the contract,
notifying Beacon that its "performance was deficient" with regard to the
"[t]imely [r]epair" of certain vehicles. Given that the record contains
memoranda documenting Beacon's deficient performance on the subject
contract, we find the agency's evaluation of Beacon's past performance was
reasonably based. Thus, we deny Beacon's protest of the evaluation of its
proposal.

Beacon protests that the agency's selection of Nash for award of the
contract was improper because the agency failed to consider whether Nash's
higher-scored proposal was worth its higher price. We agree and sustain the
protest on this basis.

Cost or price to the government must be included in every RFP as an
evaluation factor, and agencies must consider cost or price to the
government in evaluating competitive proposals. 41 U.S.C. sect. 253a(c)(1)(B)
(1994); FAR sect. 15.304(c)(1); S.J. Thomas Co., Inc., B-283192, Oct. 20, 1999,
99-2 CPD para. 73 at 3.

The protester points out that the contemporaneous record does not mention or
indicate that any sort of cost/technical tradeoff was performed, and in fact
appears to establish that the agency simply made award to Nash because of
its proposal's higher rating with no regard to its higher price. As
mentioned earlier, Nash's proposal received an overall rating of
[DELETED] out of [DELETED] points at an evaluated price of $648,958, and
Beacon's proposal received an overall rating of [DELETED] points at an
evaluated price of $608,095. Agency Report, Tab 16, Price Negotiation
Memorandum.

The agency raises two arguments in response to the protester's contention
that the agency failed to consider price in making its source selection
decision. First, the contracting officer and the agency report contend that
the agency did in fact consider price in determining that Nash's proposal
represented the best value to the government. Specifically, the contracting
officer states that "prices were evaluated and considered, and the technical
superiority of the awardee more than justified the insignificant price
difference." Contracting Officer's Statement at 13. The agency report
appears to make a similar claim, arguing that the "Price Negotiation
Memorandum reflects the [contracting officer] evaluated and considered
price, and concluded that Nash offered the best value. Implicit in that
conclusion is the determination that the significantly superior technical
ability outweighed the insignificant price difference." Agency Report at 7.
In the agency report, it was also argued that Beacon was not prejudiced by
the contemporaneous record's lack of a price/technical tradeoff, arguing
that if one were written, "the result would remain the same. Nash would have
received the award." Agency Report at 10.

Although our Office considers the entire record in determining the
reasonableness of an agency's award decision, including statements and
arguments made in response to a protest, we accord greater weight to
contemporaneous materials rather than judgments made in response to protest
contentions, such as the agency's assertions here. Intellectual Properties,
Inc., B-280803, Nov. 19, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 115 at 7.

Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded by the agency's
argument, made in the face of a bid protest, that the agency had in fact
explicitly or implicitly considered whether Nash's higher-rated,
higher-priced proposal represented a better value to the government than
Beacon's lower-rated, lower-priced proposal. First, the price negotiation
memorandum does not mention or indicate in any way that the agency engaged
in any sort of cost/technical tradeoff in determining to award the contract
to Nash. To the contrary, with regard to the selection of Nash's proposal
for award, the price negotiation memorandum states in relevant part only as
follows:

Based on the above evaluation, Nash's Auto & Body Shop's proposal is
considered the best value to the Government based on past performance and
technical capability. Prices are considered fair and reasonable. Award is
recommended to be made to Nash's Auto & Body Shop.

Determining that prices are fair and reasonable does not constitute a
cost/technical tradeoff.

Moreover, according to the agency, the cognizant contracting specialist
informed Beacon after award that "price was not an evaluation factor for
this contract award, only technical capability and past performance." Agency
Report, Tab 18, Agency Contact Record (Mar. 22, 2001). Additionally, the
agency's own record of its telephonic debriefing of Beacon, which is signed
by the contracting specialist, contracting officer and legal counsel,
provides that these agency representatives explained to Beacon that "[c]ost
was not an evaluation factor, but is considered only in the sense that
prices are reasonable," and that "price was only looked at to determine
reasonableness, and that tradeoffs for best value was not considered."
Agency Report, Tab 18, Telephonic Debriefing of Beacon (Mar. 26, 2001).

In sum, the agency's own contemporaneous documentation establishes that the
agency did not consider cost or price in evaluating the proposals to
determine the awardee. See S.J. Thomas Co., Inc., supra. Notwithstanding
that a source selection decision is required to be based on a comparative
assessment of proposal against all source selection criteria in the
solicitation and be documented, FAR sect. 15.308, the record here establishes
that the agency failed to consider whether Nash's higher-rated,
higher-priced proposal was a better value to the government than Beacon's
lower-rated, lower-priced proposal.

Given this finding, we also reject the agency's argument that there is no
reasonable possibility of prejudice based on the agency's assertion that a
price/technical tradeoff was made or that it would have selected Nash's
higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award in any case. The
contemporaneous record simply does not reflect that the agency performed a
cost/technical tradeoff as required by the RFP. The agency's assertion that
if it had performed such a tradeoff the result would be the same was
prepared in the face of this bid protest. Because it was prepared in the
heat of the adversarial process, we accord little weight to this assertion,
inasmuch as it may not represent the fair and considered judgment of the
agency, which is a prerequisite of a rational source selection process.
Intellectual Properties, Inc., supra, at 8.

The agency points out that our Office has found in certain instances a
tradeoff unobjectionable, even where the source selection authority (SSA)
did not specifically discuss the tradeoff, as long as the tradeoff is
clearly supported by the record. See, e.g., Joppa Maintenance Co., Inc.,
B-281579, B-281579.2, Mar. 2, 1999, 2000 CPD para. 2 at 7; Southern Research,
B-266360, Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 65 at 3. The agency's reliance on these
decisions is misplaced. The decisions recognize that the written analysis in
support of the SSA's tradeoff determination may, at times, be brief, but
nonetheless reasonable if it reflects that the SSA engaged in some
consideration of the relative merits and costs of the competing proposals
and arrived at a reasonable conclusion regarding which of the competing
proposals represents the best value to the government, and the determination
is otherwise supported by the record. Here, the contemporaneous record does
not reflect or otherwise indicate that the agency engaged in any
contemporaneous consideration of the relative merits and costs of the
competing proposals prior to selecting Nash's for award. We therefore
sustain the protest that the agency failed to consider price in selecting
Nash's proposal for award.

We recommend that the agency perform a cost/technical tradeoff in accordance
with the terms of the RFP. We further recommend that the agency reimburse
Beacon the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including
reasonable attorney's fees, to the extent those costs were incurred in
connection with Beacon's assertion that the agency failed to consider price
in selecting Nash's proposal for award.
4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1). Beacon's certified claim for costs, detailing the
time spent and cost incurred, must be submitted to the agency within 60 days
of receiving this decision. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1).

The protest is denied in part and sustained in part.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. The protester does not respond to the agency's concerns regarding the
notation from the vendor identified for the alignment services.

2. Nevertheless, while not specifically protested by Beacon, we fail to
understand why the deficiencies resulting from Beacon's failure to provide
the appropriate commitments for this equipment warranted a score of
[DELETED] points for this factor. In this regard, the deficiencies related
to 2 of the 17 pieces of equipment required by RFP, and there is no evidence
that there were any problems with the other equipment proposed by Beacon.
Since we sustain the protest and recommend that the agency appropriately
consider price in performing a cost/technical tradeoff, we recommend that
the agency review its rating of Beacon's proposal under this factor and make
whatever adjustments are appropriate before proceeding to a cost/technical
tradeoff.