Diverstech Co.

B-270840 May 01, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's contention that agency should have accepted its proposal despite fact that it did not include a production demonstration model (PDM) as required by solicitation. Is without merit where solicitation clearly specified that proposals were to include PDMs and protester did not timely raise objection to that requirement. Diverstech contends that it should not have been required to submit a product demonstration model (PDM) with its proposal as required by the solicitation because the agency already had a model of the product being offered by the protester from a solicitation issued 2 years previously. There was no provision for waiving the PDM requirement based on prior submissions. View Decision Matter of: Diverstech Co. File: B-270840 Date: May 1, 1996 Where solicitation instructed offerors to submit a product demonstration model (PDM), which would represent a significant portion of the technical evaluation, and warned that agency would not evaluate a proposal that did not include a PDM, record supports the agency's determination that allowing protester to submit a PDM after the date set for receipt of initial proposals would be tantamount to the acceptance of a late proposal. Protester's contention that agency should have accepted its proposal despite fact that it did not include a production demonstration model (PDM) as required by solicitation--on ground that agency allegedly had within its possession a PDM of model offered by protester, submitted by a different company in connection with a different procurement 2 years before--is without merit where solicitation clearly specified that proposals were to include PDMs and protester did not timely raise objection to that requirement. Attorneys DECISION Diverstech Co. protests the rejection of its proposal submitted under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO200-96-R-8006, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC), for surgical tourniquets. Diverstech contends that it should not have been required to submit a product demonstration model (PDM) with its proposal as required by the solicitation because the agency already had a model of the product being offered by the protester from a solicitation issued 2 years previously. We deny the protest. On October 10, 1995, the agency issued the RFP for award of a firm, fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering price and technical factors. Technical factors included, in descending order of importance, product assessment, the PDM, the offeror's quality assurance program, and corporate/past experience. Instructions for the preparation of proposals advised offerors of the need and manner for submitting a PDM for evaluation and specifically advised offerors that failure to submit the PDM would result in removal of a proposal from further consideration. The solicitation further advised offerors that the agency intended to examine the PDM to verify that it met specifications and to assess the merits of overall product quality, workmanship, and aesthetics. There was no provision for waiving the PDM requirement based on prior submissions, earlier product evaluations, or prior purchases of or experience with the model being offered. The solicitation also incorporated the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.215-10, concerning the late submission of proposals. Diverstech submitted a proposal on November 8, offering the Instrumed 90-700. The protester did not provide a PDM but attached a cover letter to the proposal, stating its belief that the agency already had a PDM for evaluation, as well as actual experience with the Instrumed product. By letter dated December 11, the agency advised the protester that it would no longer consider Diverstech's proposal because of the failure to submit a PDM in accordance with the solicitation. This protest followed. Diverstech contends that the failure to submit a PDM with its proposal should be waived as a minor informality or irregularity. In addition, the protester argues that since it submitted its proposal before the initial due date, the agency should have called Diverstech to request submission of a PDM. Diverstech also argues that the agency should have waived the requirement that Diverstech submit a PDM with its proposal since the agency had a sample of the Instrumed 90-7000 from a prior solicitation. Where a proposal omits material necessary for the evaluation, rejection is proper where the initial offer is so deficient that, in essence, no meaningful proposal was submitted, and to allow the omission to be cured after the time set for receipt of initial proposals would be inconsistent with the clause governing late proposals. Panasonic Communications & Sys. Co., B-239917, Oct. 10, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 279.