TITLE: B-299805, Midwest Metals, July 17, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299805
DATE: July 17, 2007
***************************************
B-299805, Midwest Metals, July 17, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Midwest Metals

   File: B-299805

   Date: July 17, 2007

   Dave Murar for the protester.

   Maj. Walter R. Dukes, and Pamela Kennerly-Ignatius, Esq., Department of
   the Army, for the agency.

   Frank Maguire, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Issuance of purchase order to higher-priced vendor with lower evaluated
   performance risk was unobjectionable where request for quotations advised
   that evaluation could involve tradeoff between price and performance risk,
   and agency concluded that successful vendor's lower evaluated performance
   risk made its quotation the best value despite protester's lower-quoted
   price.

   DECISION

   Midwest Metals (Midwest) protests the issuance of a delivery order to
   Alpha Technologies under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
   W52H09-07-T-0167, issued by the Department of the Army for 90 headless
   pins and 800 round nuts. Midwest challenges the Army's use of the Past
   Performance Information Retrieval System-Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR)
   in measuring performance risk and the evaluation of its proposal.

   We deny the protest.

   The solicitation was issued on January 28, 2007 as a small business
   set-aside and incorporated FAR clause 52.213-4, "Terms and
   Conditions--Simplified Acquisitions (Other than Commercial Items)." The
   solicitation contemplated a single award to the vendor whose quotation
   represented "the best value to the Government based on Price and
   Performance Risk." RFQ at 26.[1] Performance risk was to be assessed based
   on data received from PPIRS-SR, although the agency reserved the right to
   consider information from other sources. The RFQ provided that award would
   be made on a "best value" basis, which may involve a trade-off between
   price and performance risk. RFQ at 23.

   Twelve quotations were received. The protester's quotation was low at
   $6,173.40, and, based on PPIRS-SR information, received a delivery score
   (reflecting deliveries under prior contracts) of 49 for the headless pins,
   and 68 for the round nuts. Alpha's quotation was the sixth lowest at
   $10,280.70, and it received a delivery score of 100 for both items. The
   contracting officer determined that Midwest's quotation represented a much
   greater performance risk than Alpha's, and that Alpha's quotation thus was
   the best value despite its higher price. Memorandum for Record, May 15,
   2007, at 2.

   Midwest complains that the PPIRS-SR does not provide contractors with
   adequate access to data related to them, without going through cumbersome
   procedures that require a fee and as much as 6 to 8 weeks to complete. It
   further alleges that PPIRS-SR data do not correspond with data compiled by
   the Defense Logistics Agency, which apparently are more favorable to the
   protester. Midwest seems to conclude that the agency should not have based
   the performance risk evaluation on PPIRS-SR information.

   Our Bid Protest Regulations provide that a protest based upon alleged
   improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the deadline
   for receipt of offers, or quotations, must be filed before that time. 4
   C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2007). In this respect, our timeliness rules
   reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to
   present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without unduly
   disrupting or delaying the procurement process. Dominion Aviation,
   Inc.--Recon., B-275419.4, Feb. 24, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 62 at 3. Here,
   since the Army's intention to use PPRIS-SR information in the evaluation
   was clearly indicated in the RFQ, any argument that this information
   should not be used was required to be raised in a protest filed before the
   deadline for receipt of quotations. Since Midwest did not protest until
   after the delivery order was issued, this argument is untimely and will
   not be considered.

   Midwest also complains that the evaluation and award decision reflect the
   Army's "general practice" of "totally ignor[ing] the price quoted by a
   vendor and bas[ing] the entire procurement decision on the use of the
   PPIRS program." Protest at 1.[2]

   In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we
   will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was
   reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and
   applicable procurement statutes and regulations. See Shumaker Trucking &
   Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 169
   at 3. Where, as here, the RFQ provides for a price/ performance risk
   tradeoff, the agency retains discretion to issue a purchase order to a
   vendor with a higher performance risk rating, that is, a vendor which has
   a better performance record, despite a higher price, so long as the
   tradeoff decision is properly justified and otherwise consistent with the
   stated evaluation and source selection scheme. 4-D Neuroimaging,
   B-286155.2, B-286155.3, Oct. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 183 at 10; see
   MacAulay-Brown, Inc., B-292515, B-292515.2, Sept. 30, 2003, 2003 CPD para.
   190 at 8.

   The record does not support the protester's assertion that the Army based
   its award decision solely on past performance, without regard for price.
   Rather, as noted above, the record shows that the contracting officer
   compared Alpha's quotation, which received the highest possible past
   performance rating, to Midwest's (and other vendors') lower-priced
   quotations on a price/past performance basis. Based on this comparison,
   the contracting officer concluded that Alpha's higher price was "warranted
   to avoid the additional risk" reflected in Midwest's (and the other
   lower-priced vendors') lower past performance ratings. Memorandum for
   Record, May 15, 2007, at 2. Consistent with this contemporaneous
   documentation, the Contracting Officer further elaborates, in response to
   the protest, that "Midwest ...was not considered the best value to the
   Government due to their low PPIRS-SR scores of 49 and 68. Their price was
   considered and it was determined that the discount was not worth the
   performance risk that these scores represent." Memorandum for Record,
   undated, at 2. We conclude that the Army did consider price in its
   tradeoff, and that the tradeoff was otherwise unobjectionable.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The purpose of the PPIRS-SR is to provide contracting personnel with
   quantifiable past performance information regarding delivery and quality,
   as collected from existing Department of Defense reporting systems. RFQ at
   27. Delivery scores are calculated using the number of line items
   delivered and a weighting factor reflecting the length of time a delivery
   was overdue. See https://www.ppirs.gov/ppirs-sr/ppirssr.htm.

   [2] To the extent Midwest is suggesting that the agency evaluated
   quotations in bad faith, we point out that our Office will not attribute
   unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of
   inference or supposition; such allegation must be supported by convincing
   proof. Shinwa Elecs., B-290603 et al., Sept. 3, 2002, 2002 CPD para.154 at
   5 n.6. Here, Midwest has provided no evidence that the evaluation here
   reflects agency bad faith.