Nidek, Inc.

B-272255 Sep 11, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The unit was unavailable under the Federal Supply Schedule. Which was issued in early April. FAR Sec. 12.301(c) provides that when the use of evaluation factors is appropriate. Which provides for award to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous based on "price and other factors.". The specialist telephoned prospective offerors and advised them that proposals were due by the close of business on April 30. The lowest price submitted was based on separate rather than combination units. Advising the agency that the specifications were "slightly outdated and below current standards of technology" and offering a "newer technology" model for consideration. He was unable. The contract specialist advised Nidek that its price was low and that it would be awarded a contract. View Decision Matter of: Nidek, Inc. File: B-272255 Date: September 11, 1996 Contracting officer had a reasonable basis for canceling a solicitation where solicitation failed to include evaluation factors upon which the agency would evaluate offers and where the record shows that specifications in the solicitation may not accurately reflect agency's minimum needs. Attorneys DECISION Nidek, Inc. protests the cancellation of solicitation No. 556-96-01, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in North Chicago, Illinois, for a laser system. Nidek disputes the agency's determination that the solicitation omitted critical information, which prevented the evaluation of offers on a common basis. We deny the protest. In March 1996, the agency identified a need for a YAG (yttrium-aluminum garnet)/argon combination laser unit for use in the Medical Center's ophthalmology section. The unit was unavailable under the Federal Supply Schedule, and the agency decided to issue a solicitation. Accordingly, the agency published a notice in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) of its intention to issue a solicitation for a "Zeiss YAG II/Argon II combination laser or equal," in response to which any responsible source could submit a "quotation." The solicitation, which was issued in early April, did not identify the brand name (Zeiss) referenced in the CBD, but sought offers for a "YAG/Argon laser combo or equal" with installation, shipping, and handling. The solicitation contained a list of "salient features" for the unit to be provided. The solicitation generally followed the format prescribed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.3 (FAC 90- 32), for the acquisition of commercial items. FAR Sec. 12.301(c) provides that when the use of evaluation factors is appropriate, the RFP should include the clause at FAR Sec. 52.212-2, Evaluation--Commercial Items, which provides for award to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous based on "price and other factors." FAR Sec. 52.212-2 contains a block for identifying the evaluation factors; here, the contract specialist entered the word "None." Although the CBD notice advised potential offerors to submit offers by May 1, 1996, the solicitation contained no instructions for submission of offers. Upon discovering this omission, the specialist telephoned prospective offerors and advised them that proposals were due by the close of business on April 30. Five firms submitted offers on that date. The lowest price submitted was based on separate rather than combination units. Nidek submitted the low price for a combination unit, as well as an alternate proposal, advising the agency that the specifications were "slightly outdated and below current standards of technology" and offering a "newer technology" model for consideration. The contract specialist referred Nidek's proposal for evaluation. The evaluator, a doctor who had also generated the requirement, reviewed Nidek's literature. He was unable, however, to determine whether Nidek fully complied with the requirements set forth in the solicitation. Further, Nidek had not offered a Zeiss split lamp delivery system, as the doctor had expected. Not having defined the characteristics of the Zeiss system necessary for his work, the doctor had no basis upon which to judge the Nidek model unit. The contract specialist contacted Nidek, and requested and received additional information needed to demonstrate that the protester could and, in fact, intended to meet the requirements set forth in the solicitation. The doctor advised the contract specialist that he had no objection to purchase of the Nidek model. On May 6, the contract specialist advised Nidek that its price was low and that it would be awarded a contract. When the procurement was reviewed by a contracting officer, however, several deficiencies were noted. Almost none of the information normally inserted into the blocks of standard form 1449, the first page of the solicitation, was present.