TITLE:  American Artisan Productions, Inc., B-293801.2, June 7, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293801.2
DATE:  June 7, 2004
**********************************************************************
American Artisan Productions, Inc., B-293801.2, June 7, 2004

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   American Artisan Productions, Inc.
    
File:            B-293801.2
    
Date:              June 7, 2004
    
Arthur L. Friedman for the protester.
Sherry K. Kaswell, Esq., and Alton E. Woods, Esq., Department of the
Interior, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest that agency misevaluated protester*s quotation is denied where
record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with
solicitation evaluation criteria.
DECISION
    
American Artisan Productions, Inc. (AAP) protests the issuance of a
purchase order to Insight Exhibits under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
JSQ044023, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), to design and construct a complete interpretive exhibit
at a dinosaur quarry. AAP maintains that the agency misevaluated its
quotation.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The RFQ identified the procurement as a commercial item acquisition under
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and provided that the agency
would use simplified acquisition procedures contained in FAR Part 13.  The
selected vendor was to design, fabricate, ship, and install interior and
exterior exhibits at the BLM Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry located in
Utah.  The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order
for these services to the vendor whose quotation was considered most
advantageous to the government, price and other factors (technical
performance and past performance) considered.  Under the evaluation
scheme, the technical performance and past performance factors, when
combined, were significantly more important than price. 
    
To assess technical performance, the RFQ advised that the vendor*s
approach to the project and the demonstrated creativity of key personnel
proposed for this project would be evaluated.  Under past performance,
vendors were required to provide performance information for at least
three completed design, fabrication, and/or design/fabrication projects
that were the same as, or similar to, the services being solicited here. 
This information would be reviewed by the agency to assess the experience
of each vendor*s past performance in the areas of quality of product and
work performed, timeliness of performance, cost control, business
relations, and customer satisfaction. 
    
Eleven vendors, including AAP and Insight Exhibits, submitted quotations. 
A technical evaluation team reviewed and evaluated quotations under the
non-price factors using a numeric scoring system.  As a result, under the
non-price factors, AAP received a score of 58.67 points out of a possible
total of 80 points and was ranked fifth overall.[1]  In evaluating AAP*s
quotation, the contracting officer reports that the evaluators
specifically found as follows:
    
As this project is for an interpretive display for a dinosaur quarry, it
would be assumed the protester would have provided information relevant to
work done focusing on paleontology exhibits.  This firm was not awarded
the full percentage points due to their apparent lack of extensive
experience in this field.
    . . . .
In two of the projects submitted for past performance, there appear to be
cost overruns with no explanation as to why the final price is higher than
the contract price. . . . Cost control was a stated element of the past
performance criteria.
Contracting Officer*s Statement at 3-4.
    
AAP protests these evaluation findings as inaccurate and misleading,
basically arguing that its quotation reflected sufficient experience under
the past performance factor on the part of the firm and its key personnel
to perform the solicited services, and that its quotation was improperly
downgraded on the basis of an unstated evaluation factor--that AAP lacked
experience in paleontology exhibit projects.  AAP also complains that the
agency erred in downgrading its past performance record in the area of
cost control, alleging that the agency failed to contact its listed
references or AAP itself to obtain an explanation regarding cost overruns
on two of its three project references.  Protester*s Comments at 3-6. 
    
As noted above, the procurement was conducted under simplified acquisition
procedures.  Simplified acquisition procedures are designed to, among
other things, reduce administrative expenses, promote efficiency and
economy in contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and
contractors.  FAR S: 13.002.  These procedures provide discretion to
contracting officers to use one or more of the evaluation procedures in
FAR Parts 14 and 15.  See FAR S: 13.106-2(b); Finlen Complex, Inc.,
B-288280, Oct. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 167 at 8-10.  When using these
procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a
concern for fair and equitable competition and must evaluate quotations in
accordance with the terms of the solicitation.  In reviewing protests of
an allegedly improper simplified acquisition evaluation, we examine the
record to determine whether the agency met this standard and exercised its
discretion reasonably.  Russell Enters. of North Carolina, Inc., B-292320,
July 17, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 134 at 3.
    
The primary issue here is AAP*s claim that its quotation was improperly
downgraded for failing to demonstrate experience in designing and
fabricating paleontology exhibits, which the protester asserts was not
stated in the solicitation as an evaluation factor.  Protest at 3. 
However, based on the language in the RFQ, this aspect of AAP*s experience
was clearly encompassed by the past performance evaluation factor which
called for the vendor to identify at least three completed projects that
were the same or similar to the services being solicited here.  In this
respect, this is a solicitation for a contractor to design and fabricate
interpretive exhibits for the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry which, the
RFQ advised, has produced the greatest accumulation of dinosaur bones ever
found.  RFQ amend. 1,
at 4.  Consistent with this, the record shows that BLM reasonably
considered the vendors* experience with paleontology exhibit projects
under the past performance evaluation factor because this type of
experience was directly related to the work solicited here.  We find that
the agency*s consideration of the vendors* paleontology exhibit experience
did not constitute the use of an unstated evaluation criterion since this
consideration was reasonably and logically encompassed by the past
performance factor set forth in the RFQ.
    
As stated above, the agency concluded that the protester did not appear to
have extensive paleontology exhibit experience.  The record confirms the
agency*s assessment that AAP*s experience, as described in its quotation,
did not reflect extensive paleontology exhibit experience.[2]  Therefore,
we do not find the agency*s downgrading of AAP*s quotation on this basis
unreasonable.
    
We also find that the agency reasonably downgraded AAP*s quotation in the
past performance area of cost control.  As noted by BLM, AAP*s quotation
disclosed that it had cost overruns on two previous projects, which AAP
failed to explain.  While AAP insists that the reasons for the cost
overruns could have been ascertained from the project references or from
AAP itself, we note that it is not the responsibility of the agency
evaluators to solicit missing information.  It is the vendor*s obligation
to submit an adequately written quotation for the agency to evaluate and a
vendor that does not do so runs the risk that its quotation will be
downgraded or rejected as unacceptable.  See Northwest Mgmt., Inc.,
B-277503, Oct. 20, 1997, 97-2 CPD P: 108
at 5.  Since the description of the two projects in AAP*s quotation listed
the final contract price as higher than the original contract price, the
agency*s determination that AAP apparently had cost overruns on those
contracts was not unreasonable, particularly in the absence of any
explanation in AAP*s quotation for these apparent cost overruns.  Further,
in its protest and comments on the agency report, the protester neither
alleges, nor establishes, that the agency*s determination that there were
cost overruns with respect to these two contracts was incorrect.
    
In sum, we find the agency*s evaluation of AAP*s quotation to be
reasonable, and we find no basis to object to the issuance of the order to
Insight Exhibits, which submitted a higher-rated quotation at the same
price as quoted by AAP.  The protester*s disagreement with the evaluation
simply does not show that the evaluation was unreasonable.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

   ------------------------

   [1] The quotations of the four higher-ranked vendors received the
following point scores under the non-price factors:  Insight
Exhibits--69.33; Offeror A--68.00;
Offeror B--66.67; and Offeror C--61.33.  As relevant here, both AAP and
Insight Exhibits proposed the identical total price of $100,000.  The
contracting officer subsequently limited *discussions* to the vendors with
the three highest-ranked quotations, and issued the purchase order to
Insight Exhibits as the vendor submitting the best value quotation. 
Agency Report (AR) exh. 5, Technical Evaluation; exh. 4, Price Abstract. 
[2] In its comments on the agency report, AAP acknowledges that *when we
lack some specialized expertise we try to hire the best in the nation. 
Three of our team members on this project are currently completing work on
the Utah Field House of Natural History.*  Protester*s Comments at 3.  The
record shows that the agency gave the protester credit for its team
members* paleontology experience.  However, the record further shows that
AAP lost points because many of the projects identified in its quotation
did not include any paleontology related work.  AR exh. 5, Technical
Evaluation.