B-230912.2, May 27, 1988, 88-1 CPD 507

B-230912.2: May 27, 1988

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PROCUREMENT - Competitive Negotiation - Contract awards - Administrative discretion - Cost/technical tradeoffs - Technical superiority DIGEST: Protest that award of a negotiated contract was improper because it was not made to protester. On the basis of its lower priced offer is dismissed for failure to state a basis of protest where under evaluation criteria of solicitation. Cost is subordinate to technical factors. Protester does not allege that its proposal was technically equal to that of the awardee. ALGLO maintains that it was the "apparent qualified low bidder" and. Should have received the award. The protest suggests that ALGLO is of the view that award was to be made to the responsible offeror that proposed the lowest priced.

B-230912.2, May 27, 1988, 88-1 CPD 507

PROCUREMENT - Competitive Negotiation - Contract awards - Administrative discretion - Cost/technical tradeoffs - Technical superiority DIGEST: Protest that award of a negotiated contract was improper because it was not made to protester, an allegedly responsible offeror, on the basis of its lower priced offer is dismissed for failure to state a basis of protest where under evaluation criteria of solicitation, cost is subordinate to technical factors, and protester does not allege that its proposal was technically equal to that of the awardee.

Alaska Lee/Global Services, Inc:

Alaska Lee/Global Services, Inc. (ALGLO), protests the award of a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAJB0387-R-3928 issued by the Department of the Army for food service operation of the United States Army dining facilities in Korea.

We dismiss the protest.

ALGLO maintains that it was the "apparent qualified low bidder" and, for that reason, should have received the award. The protest suggests that ALGLO is of the view that award was to be made to the responsible offeror that proposed the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer. This view, however, is not consistent with the evaluation scheme and the basis for award stated in the solicitation. Section M-1 of the RFP states that "award will be made to the responsive, responsible offeror whose proposal meets al of the requirements stated in the solicitation and whose proposal is considered most advantageous to the government." That determination is based upon the review and evaluation of the proposal in accordance with the stated award basis and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. In section M-2, the RFP lists in descending order of importance four evaluation factors for award, among which cost is last and, accordingly, subordinate to the other technical factors. According to the evaluation scheme, cost becomes the determinative evaluation factor only if the proposals are found to be technically equal.

Award was not required to be made based on the lowest priced technically acceptable offer, and ALGLO does not allege that its proposal is technically equal to that of the awardee. ALGLO has, therefore, not stated a valid basis for protest J.W.K. International Corp., B-228488, Nov. 5, 1987, 87-2 Para. 450.

The protest is dismissed. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m) (1988).

Nov 25, 2020

Nov 24, 2020

Nov 20, 2020

Nov 19, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here