TITLE: B-298313.2, Aviation Technology, Inc., September 21, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298313.2
DATE: September 21, 2006
*********************************************************
B-298313.2, Aviation Technology, Inc., September 21, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Aviation Technology, Inc.

   File: B-298313.2

   Date: September 21, 2006

   John Verderame for the protester.

   J.R. Cohn, Esq., and Julius Rothlein, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the
   agency.

   Robert C. Single, Esq., for Dayton T. Brown, Inc., an intervenor.

   Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest objecting to agency's award of contract to higher-priced,
   higher-rated firm than protester is denied where acquisition was conducted
   on "best value" basis and record shows agency made reasonable
   price/technical tradeoff.

   DECISION

   Aviation Technology, Inc. (ATI) protests the award of a contract to Dayton
   T. Brown, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. M00146-06-T-9007,
   issued by the U.S. Marine Corps to acquire a quantity of hydraulic pump
   test stands. ATI asserts that the agency made an unreasonable source
   selection decision.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to furnish two
   hydraulic pump test stands. Firms were advised that award would be made on
   a "best value" basis considering price and the following non-price
   factors: technical approach (worth up to 50 of 100 possible points),
   corporate experience (25 points) and past performance (25 points). Firms
   were further advised that the non-price factors combined were
   significantly more important than price.

   The agency received numerous quotations and, after evaluating them,
   assigned the protester's a combined score of 65 points and Brown's 85
   points. Brown's price was $285,250, while the protester's was $265,876. On
   the basis of these evaluation results, the agency decided to make award to
   Brown without discussions, finding that the firm's quotation represented
   the best value to the government; the agency specifically determined that
   the slight price premium associated with award to Brown versus the
   protester was offset by the evaluated technical superiority of Brown's
   quotation.

   After being advised of the agency's source selection decision, ATI filed
   an agency-level protest. ATI questioned the source selection decision on
   grounds that ATI had offered a product that met the minimum technical
   requirements of the solicitation; that ATI is approved (by the original
   equipment manufacturer of one of the hydraulic pumps to be tested) as a
   manufacturer of the test stands; and that ATI's price was lower than
   Brown's. The agency denied ATI's protest. ATI then filed this protest with
   our Office, asserting that its quoted equipment met the minimum
   requirements of the solicitation at a price lower than Brown's and that,
   consequently, it should have received the award.

   ATI misunderstands the nature of this acquisition. Where, as here, a
   solicitation calls for detailed technical proposals and sets forth
   weighted evaluation criteria that enable the agency to make comparative
   judgments about the relative merits of competing submissions, the agency
   properly may rate one submission higher than another based on its
   exceeding the solicitation's stated requirements. ManTech Sec. Tech.
   Corp., B-297133.3, Apr. 24, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 77 at 7; see also Chicago
   Dryer Co., B-293940, June 30, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 137 at 4 (protest that
   agency should have selected protester's technically acceptable,
   lower-priced proposal over awardee's technically superior, higher-priced
   proposal that exceeded solicitation's minimum requirements was denied
   where solicitation provided for comparative evaluation of technical
   proposals, which indicated that qualitative distinction would be made
   between competing submissions).

   Here, the record shows that the agency rated Brown's quotation higher than
   the protester's primarily because Brown's provided several features that
   exceeded the minimum requirements of the solicitation in ways deemed
   beneficial to the agency. For example, the record shows that Brown's test
   stand had a component that was larger than required under the
   specifications, which the agency deemed desirable because it would enhance
   the ease of operating the device.[1] In comparison, ATI's quotation did
   little more than reiterate the specifications verbatim; it provided
   nothing that exceeded the minimum requirements of the RFQ. Since firms
   were specifically advised that the agency was conducting this acquisition
   on a best value (as opposed to low price, technically acceptable) basis,
   there was nothing improper in the agency's making these qualitative
   distinctions between the quotations, and selecting the higher-priced Brown
   quotation as providing the most advantageous product considering price and
   non-price factors; this is especially so in light of the fact that the RFQ
   advised firms that the non-price factors were significantly more important
   than price.

   ATI asserts that the agency should have amended the solicitation and
   allowed all firms to submit quotations based on the enhanced features that
   formed the basis for the award to Brown. There was no basis for the agency
   to do this. The procurement intergrity provisions of the Office of Federal
   Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. sect. 423 (2000), specifically prohibits
   federal officials from disclosing proposal information. This argument
   therefore does not provide a basis for sustaining the protest.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Our discussion here is general in nature because this aspect of
   Brown's quotation appears proprietary to the firm. We did not issue a
   protective order in connection with this protest--under which such
   information would have been available to counsel admitted to the
   protective order--because ATI elected not to retain counsel. Consequently,
   only a redacted version of the agency report was furnished to ATI.
   Nonetheless, we have carefully reviewed the entire record in camera,
   including all of the agency's evaluation materials and the quotations
   submitted by the firms. DSC Cleaning, Inc., B-292125, June 25, 2003, 2003
   CPD para. 118 at 2 n.2.