Pride Mobility Products Corporation, B-292822.5, December 6, 2004

B-292822.5 Dec 06, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pride Mobility Products Corporation protests the Department of Veterans Affairs' award of a contract to Invacare Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-797-NC-03-0028, for standard-size, power-based wheelchairs. Pride challenges the evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision B-292822.5, Pride Mobility Products Corporation, December 6, 2004 Decision Matter of: Pride Mobility Products Corporation File: B-292822.5 Date: December 6, 2004 Stephen M. Azia, Esq., Eastwood & Azia, for the protester. Edward O. Patton, Esq., Mansour, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos, for Invacare Corporation, an intervenor. Barbara J. Stuetzer, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against agency determination that awardee's proposed wheelchair was superior to protester's is denied where the determination was reasonably based on a demonstration of the wheelchairs, as provided for by the solicitation, which showed that the awardee's wheelchair was superior in both indoor and outdoor environments. DECISION Pride Mobility Products Corporation protests the Department of Veterans Affairs' award of a contract to Invacare Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-797-NC-03-0028, for standard-size, power-based wheelchairs. Pride challenges the evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for award of one or more fixed-price indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contracts--with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options--for 4items or award groups, including: integral seat power wheelchairs, light duty (group 1); integral seat power wheelchairs, moderate duty (group 2); power-based wheelchairs, small size (group 3); and power-based wheelchairs, standard size (group 4), the only group in issue here. The RFP included detailed specifications, setting forth both dimensions and minimum performance capabilities, and required the submission of sample wheelchairs for purposes of demonstrating conformance to the specifications and the performance of the wheelchairs. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror(s) whose conforming proposal(s) would be most advantageous to the government--that is, on a "best value" basis-- considering four factors (in descending order of importance): (1) technical, including subfactors (in descending order of importance) for performance, required options, American National Standards Institute/Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (ANSI/RESNA) test results and overall suitability for VA patients; (2)price, (3)quality/past performance, and (4)small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation. The RFP provided for the sample wheelchairs to be evaluated under the technical factors, but also provided that the evaluation was not limited to these factors, and reserved the right for VA "to inspect any aspect of the wheelchairs." RFP at 36. Further, the RFP provided that "[s]ignificant weight will be given to the overall performance of the power wheelchairs during" the demonstration. Id. For purposes of determining the most advantageous offer, the technical factor was slightly more important than price, and quality/past performance and SDB participation combined were significantly less important than price. Ten proposals from seven offerors were received by the closing time. After conducting discussions with the offerors and twice requesting revised proposals, VA determined that the proposal submitted by Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc. was most advantageous. Pride and another firm challenged the ensuing award to Sunrise in protests filed in our Office, in response to which, VA proposed corrective action. Thereafter, VA issued amendment No. 6, requesting that offerors resubmit three sample wheelchairs, including one programmed for indoor use and another programmed for outdoor use. Offerors were advised by the amendment, as they had been in the original solicitation, that the wheelchairs would be tested for "[p]erformance (including but not limited to the outdoor factors of ease of use, maneuverability, inclines, obliques, comfort of ride, grass, mud, sand, gravel, speed, and programmability; and indoor factors of turning radius, braking distance, durability)." Amend. 6. No price revisions were allowed. Based on the reevaluation, VA determined that Invacare's proposal of the [DELETED] wheelchair was the most advantageous offer.