TITLE: B-298572, Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc., October 4, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298572
DATE: October 4, 2006
*****************************************************
B-298572, Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc., October 4, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc.

   File: B-298572

   Date: October 4, 2006

   Isabel Kaldenbach-Montemayor and Robin Buckley for the protester.

   David T. Copenhaver, Esq., and Mary Schaffer, Esq., Bureau of the Public
   Debt, for the agency.

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging award to a higher technically rated, higher priced
   vendor is denied where the solicitation provided that technical merit was
   more important than price and the agency's procurement record provided a
   reasonable basis for the award decision.

   DECISION

   Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc. protests the award of a blanket purchase
   agreement (BPA) to Ogilvy Public Relations under request for quotations
   (RFQ) No. RFQ-06-132, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of
   Public Debt, for public relations services. The protester contends that
   the agency made an improper source selection decision by awarding the BPA
   to Ogilvy based on that vendor's higher technically rated and
   higher-priced quotation.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
   (ID/IQ) BPA, and sought quotations for provision of public relations
   educational activities in support of the agency's TreasuryDirect program.
   The RFQ limited competition to vendors who hold contracts under the
   General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) for the
   required services. The RFQ advised prospective vendors that quotations
   would be evaluated on the basis of three factors--technical, past
   performance, and price--advised offerors that "[t]echnical merit,
   including past performance, is of greater value than price," and stated
   that award would be based on the quotation that provided the "best overall
   value to the government." RFQ at 10-11.

   The agency received 11 quotations responding to the RFQ. Thereafter, the
   agency established a competitive range consisting of the four most highly
   rated vendors, including Buckley and Ogilvy, and conducted discussions
   with those vendors. In conducting discussions with Buckley, the agency
   identified aspects of Buckley's quotation that caused the quotation to
   receive less than the highest technical evaluation score. Agency Report
   (AR), Tab 10, Source Selection Decision (SSD) Memorandum, at 2. During
   discussions the agency also requested that the competitive range vendors
   "sharpen their pencils" by submitting revised pricing for the five FSS
   labor categories that the agency believed would be most likely ordered
   under the BPA. AR, Tab 9, E-mail from Agency Contract Specialist to
   Vendors, June 19, 2006. Following receipt of the revised quotations, the
   agency evaluated Buckley's and Ogilvy's quotations as follows:[2]

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                        |      Price[3]      |  Total Technical Score   |
   |------------------------+--------------------+--------------------------|
   |        Buckely         |    $130,625.00     |           120            |
   |------------------------+--------------------+--------------------------|
   |         Ogilvy         |    $149,812.50     |           130            |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 10, SSD Memorandum, at 3, 5; Contracting Officer's Statement at 4.

   Based on its evaluation of the final revised quotations, the agency
   determined that Ogilvy's quotation provided the best overall value to the
   government, and selected that firm for award. Id. at 5. Buckley contends
   that the agency's SSD was flawed because it resulted in award to a vendor
   whose price was approximately 12 percent higher than Buckley's, despite
   having only an approximately 7 percent higher technical score.

   Source selection officials in negotiated procurements have broad
   discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will make
   use of the technical and price evaluation results; price/technical
   tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for
   the other is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency with
   the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Atteloir, Inc., B-290601,
   B-290602, Aug. 12, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 160 at 5. As part of the source
   selection process, the evaluation ratings of offerors' proposals, whether
   numeric, color or adjectival, are but guides to, and not substitutes for,
   intelligent decisionmaking; they do not mandate automatic selection of a
   particular proposal. Jacobs COGEMA, LLC, B-290125.2, B-290125.3, Dec. 18,
   2002, 2003 CPD para. 16 at 31.

   Here, as noted above, the solicitation provided that technical merit was
   more important than price. Further, as also discussed above, Buckley's
   quotation received a lower technical rating than that of Ogilvy, and
   Buckley has identified no basis for challenging the agency's technical
   evaluation of either vendor's quotation. In this regard, the record shows
   that the agency reasonably documented the technical strengths associated
   with Ogilvy's quotation and, similarly, identified the basis for giving
   Buckley's quotation a lower technical rating. See AR, Tab 10, SSD
   Memorandum, at 3; Tabs 4-7, Agency Technical Evaluations. Finally,
   although the agency did not document a direct comparison of Ogilvy's and
   Buckley's quotations, it is clear that the agency concluded that the
   technical superiority of Ogilvy's quotation warranted payment of a
   somewhat higher price and, accordingly, represented the best overall value
   to the government. Based on our review of the entire record, we find no
   basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's decision to select
   Ogilvy's quotation for award.

   The protest is denied.[4]

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] While our decision refers to the "award" of a BPA, which is the
   terminology used by the parties, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
   in fact refers to the "establishment" of a BPA against an FSS contract.
   FAR sections 8.403(a)(2), 8.404(b). The parties' terminology reflects the
   fact that, although the agency proceeded under FSS, it actually conducted
   the procurement much like a negotiated procurement under FAR part 15.

   [2] Our decision does not further discuss the quotations submitted by the
   other two competitive range vendors, neither of whom were parties to this
   protest. Additionally, our discussion regarding the agency's evaluation of
   quotations is general in nature because those evaluations and the source
   selection decision reference materials in the vendors' quotations appear
   to be proprietary to the vendors. 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 Buckley
   elected not to retain counsel. Consequently, only a redacted version of
   the agency report was furnished to Buckley. Nonetheless, we have reviewed
   the entire record in camera, including all of the agency's evaluation
   materials and the quotations submitted by the firms.

   [3] The agency evaluated vendors' prices based on proposed hourly rates,
   multiplied by hours for the labor categories identified in the agency's
   request for revised pricing. The resulting evaluated price was for the
   first year of performance.

   [4] In its protest submissions, Buckley also raises various issues that
   are either untimely or fail to state valid bases for protest including,
   for example, a challenge to the agency's determination not to set aside
   the procurement for small businesses, which is untimely because this issue
   was not raised prior to the time for receipt of quotations. Bid Protest
   Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sections 21.2(a)(1). 21.5(f) (2006). We have
   considered all of Buckley's allegations and find no basis for sustaining
   its protest.