Imaging Technology Corporation

B-270124 Feb 12, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Rejection of lowest-priced quotation from FSS contractor without consideration of its technical acceptability was improper. The protester contends that the order should have been placed with it since its quotation was lower in price than NEI's. Which was issued on September 14. The RFQ advised that all items were to be "quoted off a current GSA schedule" (although non-schedule items were permitted if they could be ordered together with the scheduled buy or totaled less than $25. Vendors were instructed to furnish the number of the schedule from which. They were quoting. Four quotations were received by the September 20 closing date. The number of the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract from which it was quoting. View Decision Matter of: Imaging Technology Corporation File: B-270124 Date: February 12, 1996 Under request for quotations (RFQ), which sought prices for items listed on Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) and did not request submission with quotations of information demonstrating compliance with the technical requirements set out in the RFQ, rejection of lowest-priced quotation from FSS contractor without consideration of its technical acceptability was improper. Attorneys DECISION Imaging Technology Corporation (ITC) protests the award of a purchase order for computerized badging systems to Network Engineering Inc. (NEI) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. EMQ-5-4442/R, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The protester contends that the order should have been placed with it since its quotation was lower in price than NEI's. We sustain the protest. The RFQ, which was issued on September 14, 1995, sought quotations for 15 computerized photographic identification card systems. The solicitation defined 32 features and capabilities required of the systems. The RFQ advised that all items were to be "quoted off a current GSA schedule" (although non-schedule items were permitted if they could be ordered together with the scheduled buy or totaled less than $25,000), with award to be made to the lowest-priced schedule vendor, including the value of non-schedule items. Vendors were instructed to furnish the number of the schedule from which, and to designate the items on which, they were quoting, and to provide price information. The RFQ did not require the submission of descriptive literature or a narrative describing how a vendor's proposed system would meet the RFQ's requirements. Four quotations were received by the September 20 closing date. ITC's quotation contained only the information specifically requested by the RFQ, i.e., unit and total prices for 15 badging systems and 4 years maintenance and warranty; the number of the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract from which it was quoting; and an item-by-item designation of the components (e.g., computer, software, printer, monitor, etc.) comprising its system and their prices. NEI, on the other hand, responded to the RFQ with a proposal which contained an individual statement of compliance with each of the specifications (with arguably one exception) [1] and descriptive literature establishing compliance with some of the requirements. NEI's response also designated the number of the FSS contract and the items on which it was quoting, and furnished itemized price information; it did not provide overall unit and extended prices for the badging systems and maintenance/warranty, as requested, however. The contracting officer evaluated the vendors' offered prices and determined that NEI's overall price for the basic systems requested was $285,618.75, [2] which was low; ITC's quotation, with an overall price of $295,192.00, was second low. The contracting officer then referred the quotations for technical evaluation. The technical evaluator concluded that it was impossible to evaluate the acceptability of ITC's quotation since it contained no discussion of the system's capabilities. Since NEI's price was lowest and its quotation had been determined to be technically acceptable, the contracting officer issued a purchase order for the badging systems to NEI on September 27. ITC argues that the contracting officer miscalculated NEI's price and that it was not in fact low. [3] We have reviewed NEI's figures and the agency's calculations, and we agree. It is apparent that in arriving at the figure $285,618.75, the contracting officer failed to include two items of cost identified by NEI on its itemized pricing sheet (and included in the purchase order issued): $9,800 for database development, installation, and maintenance; and $8,925 for training. The RFQ required that vendors provide at least three training sessions for each system purchased, and the cost of this training was included in calculating the other vendors' total prices.