Midmark Corporation, B-278298, January 14, 1998

B-278298 Jan 14, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The delivery order was placed under Enochs's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. An agency is not required to seek further competition. The BACH purchase request was for an examination table with a pelvic tilt and listed the Midmark Model No. 405 as a compliant model. The contract specialist checked the FSS catalog to assess whether there were other examination tables that satisfied the hospital's needs. The tables were the Enochs Power 4000. 863.38 with a 1-year parts and labor warranty (the quote was slightly higher than the FSS price due to the addition of a bracket). The Ritter models were considered unacceptable because no extended warranties were offered and because the models lacked required safety features. View Decision Matter of: Midmark Corporation File: B-278298 Date: January 14, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Midmark Corporation protests the issuance of delivery order No. DAKF23-97-F-0524 to Enochs Manufacturing, Inc. by the Department of the Army for medical examination tables for the Blanchfield Army Community Hospital (BACH) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The delivery order was placed under Enochs's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. We deny the protest. After receiving a purchase request from BACH for 119 medical examination tables, the contracting officer decided to purchase the requirement under the FSS program. The FSS program, directed and managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), provides federal agencies with a simplified process for obtaining commonly used commercial supplies and services at prices associated with volume buying. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 8.401(a). When placing an order under an FSS, an agency is not required to seek further competition, synopsize the solicitation or award, or determine fair and reasonable pricing, since the planning, solicitation, and award phases of the FSS satisfy these FAR requirements. FAR Sec. 8.404(a); Design Contempo, Inc., B-270483, Mar. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 146 at 2. The BACH purchase request was for an examination table with a pelvic tilt and listed the Midmark Model No. 405 as a compliant model. The contract specialist checked the FSS catalog to assess whether there were other examination tables that satisfied the hospital's needs, and, after reviewing the schedule information, determined that two listed tables met the government's needs. The tables were the Enochs Power 4000, listed at $3,483.78 per unit, and the Midmark Model No. 405, listed at $3,385.85 per unit. Because of the substantial quantity to be ordered, in accordance with FAR Sec. 8.404(b)(3), the contracting officer contacted both vendors about the possibility of a price reduction. Enochs submitted quotes for its Power 4000 of $3,100.56 per unit for a total of $368,966.64 with a 4-year parts and labor warranty, and $2,900 per unit for a total of $345,100, for the same model with a 1-year parts and labor warranty and an additional 3-year parts-only warranty. Midmark submitted a quote for its Model No. 405 of $3,419.02 per unit for a total of $406,863.38 with a 1-year parts and labor warranty (the quote was slightly higher than the FSS price due to the addition of a bracket). Midmark also submitted quotes for the Ritter Model 105 at $3,240.14 per unit for a total of $385,576.66 and the Ritter Model 107 at $2,440.16 per unit for a total of $290,379.04--both with the same 1-year warranties. In addition, Midmark offered a $250 trade-in credit for each Midmark or Ritter power examination table and $50 for each Midmark or Ritter non- power box style examination table (for up to 119 trade-ins). [1] BACH technical representatives reviewed the quotes and evaluated the tables to determine if they met BACH requirements. After the evaluation, the agency determined that the Enochs 4000 table (with a 1-year parts and labor warranty and additional 3-year parts-only warranty) best met the government's needs at the lowest price. The technical evaluators considered Midmark's quote for the Ritter 105 and 107 examination tables, but determined that these tables did not meet the agency's needs. The Ritter models were considered unacceptable because no extended warranties were offered and because the models lacked required safety features. The most significant feature which these models did not provide was an operator-resettable, externally mounted circuit breaker, which permits the operator to re-set the breaker without calling for additional maintenance support, and which was considered an essential patient safety requirement. A delivery order was issued to Enochs on September 18. Delivery of the tables has been suspended pending resolution of the protest. In its protest, Midmark asserted that its Model 405 was the specified brand name and had certain unique features not found in the Enochs 4000.