Matter of: CardioMetrix File: B-258108 Date: November 16, 1994

Matter of: CardioMetrix File: B-258108 Date: November 16, 1994

The fact that a solicitation does not assign a specific numerical weight to price does not mean that price is not an evaluation factor; where the relative importance of price and technical factors is not identified in a solicitation, price and technical factors are considered approximately equal in importance.

Attorneys

DECISION

CardioMetrix protests that the evaluation criteria under request for proposals (RFP) No. IRS-94-0050, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, for medical services, are defective because price is not given a specific point score.

We deny the protest.

Section M of the RFP provides that award will be made to the offeror whose proposal offers the "best value" to the government, and that "the [g]overnment is more concerned with obtaining superior technical features than with making an award at the lowest overall price to the [g]overnment." The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under certain listed technical evaluation factors and provided their respective point values, which added up to a maximum technical score of 100 points. The RFP did not provide for the price proposal to be point-scored. Instead, the RFP provided that a price analysis would be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.805-2, and further indicated that in making its best-value assessment, the agency "will not make an award at a significantly higher price to the [g]overnment to achieve slightly superior technical features."

CardioMetrix contends that this scheme is flawed because, in effect, price is not an evaluation factor since it is not point-scored. CardioMetrix's argument is mistaken. The disclosure of precise numerical weights to be used in the evaluation is not required. FAR Sec. 15.605(e). What is required is that the solicitation clearly advise offerors of the broad scheme of scoring to be employed and give reasonably definite information concerning the relative importance of the evaluation factors in relation to each other. North-East Imaging, Inc., B-256281, June 1, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 332.

Here, by stating only that the government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical features than with making an award at the lowest overall price, the RFP was, in effect, silent with regard to the relative weight to be given to price versus technical factors. Where, a solicitation indicates that price will be considered, without explicitly indicating the relative weight to be given to price versus technical factors, price and technical considerations will be accorded approximately equal weight and importance in the evaluation. Johns Hopkins Univ., B-233384, Mar. 6, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 240. Once that is taken into account, the RFP language in this case provided offerors with sufficient information relating to the evaluation factors and their relative importance.

The protest is denied.