Leisure-Lift, Inc., B-291878.3; B-292448.2, September 25, 2003

Leisure-Lift, Inc., B-291878.3; B-292448.2, September 25, 2003 TITLE: Leisure-Lift, Inc., B-291878.3; B-292448.2, September 25, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291878.3; B-292448.2 DATE: September 25, 2003 ********************************************************************** Leisure-Lift, Inc., B-291878.3; B-292448.2, September 25, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Leisure-Lift, Inc. File: B-291878.3; B-292448.2 Date: September 25, 2003 Philip J. Davis, Esq., Phillip H. Harrington, Esq., William Leith, Esq., and Timothy W. Staley, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for the protester. Robert H. Koehler, Esq., Patton Boggs, for Electric Mobility Corp., and Timothy S. Kerr, Esq., Elliot Reihner Siedzikowski & Egan, for Golden Technologies, the intervenors. Maura C. Brown, Esq., and Philip S. Kaufman, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency*s determination that the awardee offered a domestic end product compliant with the Buy American Act was reasonable, where in response to allegations made prior to award concerning the compliance of the awardee*s product, the agency reasonably investigated the compliance of awardee*s product with the Buy American Act, including visiting the awardee*s facility to observe the manufacturing process and receiving detailed information from the awardee regarding the cost and origin of the components that comprise the offered product, and where the protester provided no specifics that showed the end product or the majority of its component costs were not manufactured in the United States. 2. The agency*s pre-award receipt of an unsupported allegation that the awardee sells an inferior product manufactured by another firm in Taiwan does not impose an obligation on the contracting officer to conduct an investigation whether the awardee will comply with the awardee*s certification in its proposal that the end products offered in its proposal are compliant with the Trade Agreements Act. DECISION Leisure-Lift, Inc. protests the awards of contracts to Golden Technologies under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-NC-03-0007 (-0007) and Electric Mobility Corp. (EMC) under RFP No. 797-NC-03-0008 (-0008), issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, for motorized scooters to be used by individuals with mobility problems. The protester contends that the award to Golden under RFP -0007 was improper because the Golden scooters are not domestic end products for the purposes of the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. S: 10a-10d (2000). Leisure-Lift argues with regard to RFP -0008 that the award to EMC was improper because the award was not in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. S:S: 2501-2582 (2000), and that the agency did not reasonably evaluate its proposal and product sample, and failed to conduct meaningful discussions with it. We deny the protests. The agency explains that the procurements here are *part of a broader program underway at VA to standardize prosthetic items.* Agency Report (AR) (B-291878.3) at 1; (B-292448.2) at 1. In this regard, VA has established a Prosthetic Clinical Management Program (PCMP), whose goals *include enhancing and standardizing the quality of care, enhancing the appropriate use of Prosthetics, improving access to Prosthetics, and reducing the acquisition cost of Prosthetics.* AR (B-291878.3) at 2; (B-292448.2) at 2. The specifications and evaluation factors for the scooter procurements here were developed by a *scooter workgroup* within the VA*s PCMP. The solicitations were issued in order to *obtain user uniformity and quality products at lower than current contract and open-market prices* through the establishment of consolidated requirements contracts for scooters purchased through the PCMP. AR (B-291878.3) at 2; (B-292448.2) at 2. RFP -0007 RFP -0007, issued as a total set-aside for small businesses, provided for the award of a requirements contract, for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the government, and listed the following evaluation factors: technical, price, and quality/past performance. The RFP informed offerors that the technical factor was slightly more important than price, and that the quality/past performance factor was significantly less important than price. The RFP required offerors to submit product samples (i.e., scooters) for evaluation, in addition to technical and business proposals.