TITLE: B-400154, Commercial Window Shield, July 2, 2008
BNUMBER: B-400154
DATE: July 2, 2008
************************************************
B-400154, Commercial Window Shield, July 2, 2008

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
   Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: Commercial Window Shield

   File: B-400154

   Date: July 2, 2008

   Christopher Hensien, Esq., Kevin J. Kenney & Associates, Ltd., for the
   protester.
   Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency.
   Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency improperly evaluated vendor's quotation is denied
   where the evaluation was consistent with the request for quotations and
   the protester's arguments reflect mere disagreement with the agency's
   technical judgments.

   DECISION

   Commercial Window Shield (CWS) protests the issuance of an order to SOLAR
   Security Films under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RGSMD121107, issued
   by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for providing and installing
   security film on windows at various EPA facilities. CWS challenges the
   agency's evaluation of its quotation and best value award decision.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ, issued on December 11, 2007 to vendors on General Services
   Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 56, provided for the issuance
   of a fixed-price order to provide and install security film to windows at
   various EPA facilities. An order was to be issued to the vendor whose
   quotation was evaluated as the "best value" to the government, considering
   four technical evaluation factors listed in descending order of
   importance: (1) approach and schedule, (2) experience, (3) organization
   and staffing, and (4) past performance, as well as price. When combined,
   the technical evaluation factors were more important than price.

   Five quotations, including those from CWS and SOLAR, were received and
   evaluated. CWS and SOLAR were the two highest technically rated vendors.
   CWS received technical ratings of "above average" under the first two
   technical factors (approach and schedule, and experience), a rating of
   "average" under the third factor (organization and staffing), and a rating
   of "outstanding" under the fourth factor (past performance). Overall, CWS
   was rated as "above average" and had a total evaluated price of $313,473.
   SOLAR was also rated "above average" overall and had a substantially lower
   total evaluated price of $210,842.53. Given CWS's and SOLAR's overall
   technical ratings of "above average" and SOLAR's lower price, the agency
   determined that the quotation submitted by SOLAR represented the best
   value. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Source Selection Determination. After
   learning of the agency's decision to issue the order to SOLAR, CWS filed
   this protest.

   In its protest, CWS argues that the EPA's evaluation of its quotation
   under the first three technical evaluation factors was flawed.
   Specifically, under the first technical evaluation factor (approach and
   schedule), CWS challenges the EPA's conclusion that its proposed schedule
   failed to provide details on the major activities at each site and was
   therefore inadequate. Under the second factor (experience), CWS contends
   that the "above average" rating it received cannot be reconciled with its
   "outstanding" rating under the past performance factor since the EPA
   considered the same information under both factors. Regarding its
   "average" rating under the third factor (organization and staffing), CWS
   contends the EPA unreasonably determined that its quotation created a
   performance risk by failing to identify the installers who will be working
   on the EPA sites and how the installers are selected. Lastly, CWS asserts
   that the EPA's selection decision was inconsistent with the RFQ because it
   was "based upon the lowest-priced, technically acceptable submission"
   instead of a tradeoff between the technical factors and price.

   In reviewing protests of an agency's evaluation, our Office does not
   reevaluate vendors' quotations; rather, we review the record to ensure
   that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms
   of the solicitation. See GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, B-298102, B-298102.3, June
   14, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 96 at 6; RVJ Int'l, Inc., B-292161, B-292161.2,
   July 2, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 124 at 5. A protester's mere disagreement
   with the agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish that an agency's
   judgments are unreasonable.

   The evaluation and source selection here were unobjectionable. Regarding
   the approach and schedule factor, vendors were required to provide
   information explaining how they would address five steps in applying
   security window film: (1) preparing the work area, (2) cleaning the glass,
   (3) cutting the film to size, (4) installing the film, and (5) finishing.
   In addition, vendors were to provide "an estimated project schedule
   showing execution of the project from issuance of the Task Order to
   completion and acceptance of the buildings" and "should provide sufficient
   information to understand the proposed flow of activities for the project,
   and the duration and coordination of major activities at each building
   site, and from location to location." RFQ at 2. CWS's quotation addressed
   the schedule element by providing a summary chart, which listed each site,
   the number of days required to perform a site visit, the number of panes
   of glass and square feet of film required at each site, the number of days
   required to perform the work at each site and the month in which the site
   visit and installation were to be occur. CWS's Quotation, Schedule
   Summary.

   In evaluating CWS's schedule information, the EPA found it to be
   "adequate" and noted that it lacked details on the major activities at
   each site. AR, Tab 6, Source Selection Determination, at 4. CWS argues
   that the information it provided was more than adequate given the "simple
   and straight forward" nature of the work and the fact that a firm schedule
   would be coordinated after award. Comments, June 19, 2008, at 6. Regarding
   the latter point, the fact that a firm schedule would be coordinated after
   award did not negate the requirement in the RFQ for vendors to provide an
   "estimated project schedule," detailing the vendor's execution of the
   project from start to finish. As to CWS's former argument, given the
   discretion afforded the agency in performing its technical evaluation and
   the fact that the argument is premised entirely on its own opinion of the
   quality of its quotation, there is nothing to suggest that the EPA acted
   unreasonably in concluding that CWS's schedule was "adequate" and that CWS
   was entitled to an "above average" rating for factor 1.

   Under the experience factor, CWS was rated "above average." CWS maintains
   that it could not have reasonably been rated less than "outstanding" since
   the agency considered the same information it used to rate CWS as
   "outstanding" under the past performance factor, and because the agency
   found its experience to be a strength and did not identify any weaknesses
   under this factor. CWS's argument, however, fails to recognize that the
   experience and past performance factors reflected separate and distinct
   concepts. Under the experience factor, the agency examined the degree to
   which a vendor had experience performing similar projects; under the past
   performance factor, the agency considered the quality of a vendor's
   performance history. Given the fundamentally different nature of the
   evaluations, a rating in one factor would not automatically result in the
   same rating under the other. In addition, it does not follow that the
   finding of a strength and the lack of weaknesses automatically entitled
   CWS to a rating of "outstanding." Rather, such a rating was reserved for
   submissions determined to "well exceed[]" the requirements and containing
   "numerous significant outstanding features," while the above average
   rating assigned to CWS under the experience factor applied where the
   submission was considered "good with some superior features." AR, Tab 6,
   Source Selection Determination, at 3. We see nothing in the record, beyond
   CWS's opinion of its own quotation, to support a conclusion that the
   agency acted unreasonably in rating CWS's experience "above average."

   Regarding the third factor, organization and staffing, the EPA rated CWS's
   quotation as "average." Under this factor, vendors were required to
   provide an organizational chart indicating how it would organize and staff
   the project. RFQ at 3. In addressing this factor, CWS explained that it
   employs very few full-time installers and that it draws from a "very
   select group," which has been trained by CWS. CWS Quotation, Tech. Factor
   III, at 3. In this regard, CWS indicated that these installers are "not
   subcontractors, per se." Id.

   The agency, however, had some concerns regarding the lack of clarity
   regarding the identity of this pool of installers, their employment
   relationship with CWS, and how they would be selected for each site. In
   the agency's view, CWS's staffing plan to hire installers from an
   unidentified labor pool presented some risk given the relatively short
   schedules at each site, ranging from a few days to a few weeks. AR, Tab 6,
   Source Selection Determination, at 5. CWS argues that the agency's
   concerns are unfounded since the specific identify of the installer is
   insignificant and because its business model actually reduces risk by
   providing greater flexibility to perform the job on a timely basis.
   Accordingly, CWS's maintains that its quotation should have been rated as
   "outstanding." CWS's arguments in this regard, however, amount to mere
   disagreement with the EPA's assessment of its quotation on this point.
   While CWS may believe its business model to be superior, the agency
   specifically considered this issue, exercised its judgment, and rated
   CWS's quotation as "average" under this factor. There simply is no basis
   for our Office to conclude that the agency's exercise of its judgment in
   this regard was unreasonable.

   As a final matter, CWS argues that the agency's best value determination
   was flawed because it did not give proper weight to the technical factors,
   instead selecting SOLAR based upon price alone. However, because CWS and
   SOLAR had the same overall technical rating of "above average," SOLAR's
   substantially lower price properly became the discriminating factor for
   award. Where selection officials reasonably regard proposals as being
   essentially equal technically, price may become the determinative factor
   in making an award notwithstanding the fact that the evaluation criteria
   assigned price less importance than technical considerations. The MIL
   Corp., B-297508, B-297508.2, Jan. 26, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 34 at 14.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel