Date: November 17, 1987
P.S. Protest No. 87-104
TELEX FEDERAL TELEPHONY, INC.
Solicitation No. 129990-87-B-0072
DECISION
Telex Federal Telephony, Inc. (Telex), 1 protests award of a contract for an Electronic Private Automatic Branch Exchange (EPABX) telephone system for the Atlanta Division Office to BellSouth Government Systems, Inc. (BellSouth), under Solicitation No. 129990-87-B-0072. Telex alleges that award to BellSouth was erroneous because Telex's offer was lower in price and, therefore, more advantageous.
Solicitation No. 129990-87-B-0072 was issued by the Atlanta Procurement and Materiel Management Service Office on January 19, 1987, with an offer due date of March 23. According to the evaluation scheme set out in the solicitation award was to be made to the highest overall total evaluated score. Points awarded as a result of the technical evaluation would comprise 60 percent of the total score and points awarded here on price would comprise 40 percent. Several technically acceptable offers were received and evaluated. BellSouth's proposal received the highest evaluated score, and award was made to it on September 25. Telex's timely protest followed.
Telex alleges that its price was $62,000 lower than that of BellSouth. Even though the evaluation criteria were weighted slightly in favor of the technical score, Telex does not believe that there could exist a sufficient technical difference to overcome this large price differential. Thus, Telex thinks that award should properly have been made to it. 2
The contracting officer has responded to the protest, noting that BellSouth's total score was 94.69 (60.00 technical and 34.69 price), Telex's total score was 79.98 (42.33 technical and 37.65 price). He states that, while Telex's offer was lower in price than that of BellSouth, BellSouth's proposal was significantly superior technically to that of Telex. Given the 60-40% split favoring the technical score, as well as the wide disparity between the two offerors' technical scores, the contracting officer concludes that award was correctly made.
In Management Concepts, Inc., P.S. Protest No. 86-29, July 10, 1986, we set out the standard of review by which protests against the evaluation and scoring of proposals are to be judged:
[T]his office will not substitute its judgment for that of the evaluators or disturb the evaluation unless it is shown to be arbitrary or in violation of procurement regulations. H & B Telephone Systems, [P.S. Protest No. 83-61, February 6, 1984]; Amdahl Corporation, P.S. Protest No. 81-34, September 29, 1981. The determination of the relative merits of technical proposals is the responsibility of the contracting officer. This office does not resolve disputes on the scoring of technical proposals. Computer Systems & Resources, Inc., [P.S. Protest No. 86-9, March 27, 1986], citing Mid-Atlantic Forestry Services, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-217334, September 9, 1985, 85-2 CPD &279.
* * *
[T]he assignment of numerical scores or ratings to a proposal is an attempt to quantify what is essentially a subjective judgment. This is an accepted procedure. Book Fare, Inc., P.S. Protest No. 80-29, July 3, 1980; Didactic Systems, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-190507, June 7, 1978, 78-1 CPD &418. "The determination of the desirability of proposals is largely subjective, primarily the responsibility of the procuring [activity], and not subject to objection ... unless shown to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or violative of the law." High Plains Consultants, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-215383, October 18, 1984, 84-2 CPD &418; Credit Bureau Reports, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-209780, June 20, 1983, 83-1 CPD &670.
We have reviewed the technical evaluation of the offerors and conclude that, while there is a disagreement between Telex and the contracting officer as to the evaluated weight of its proposal, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the evaluation of its proposal was arbitrary or capricious. The determinations of the technical evaluators and the contracting officer are reasonable and supported in the record.
The protest is denied.
William J. Jones
Associate General Counsel
Office of Contracts and Property Law
[checked against original JLS 3/12/93]
Send inquiries to William J. Jones
1. We note that, during most of the period at issue here, Telex was named United Digital Networks.
2. Telex mentions in its protest that it has protested to the Postal Service rather than to the General Accounting Office or to the General Services Board of Contract Appeals "in order to maintain good relations between us." Neither of these boards have protest jurisdiction over the Postal Service. The GSBCA receives its limited grant of bid protest jurisdiction pursuant to the Competition in Contracts Act of 1984, P.L. 98-369, a statute which by its terms does not apply to the Postal Service. The GAO's bid protest regulations state they do not extend to Postal Service procurements.