Chicago Dryer Company, B-293940, June 30, 2004

B-293940 Jun 30, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chicago Dryer Company (CDC) protests the issuance of an order to G.A. Braun, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 244-04-00123 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for laundry equipment at the VA Medical Center laundry facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. CDC objects to the agency's evaluation of its and Braun's quotations. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293940, Chicago Dryer Company, June 30, 2004 Decision Matter of: Chicago Dryer Company File: B-293940 Date: June 30, 2004 H. K. Tyler Jr. for the protester. Dennis Foley, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Angela A. Wu and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's selection decision is timely when filed within 10 days of protester's receipt of information from contracting agency explaining the basis for the agency's decision. 2. Contracting agency reasonably considered additional, value-added features offered by vendor where solicitation stated that quotations offering features beyond those specified in the solicitation, and found to be of value to the agency, would be favorably considered in the evaluation. 3. Contracting agency reasonably selected technically superior, slightly higher-priced quotation where solicitation provided for selection of quotation found most advantageous to the government, and agency reasonably determined that successful vendor's additional technical features better satisfied agency's needs so as to outweigh small price premium, compared to protester's lower technically rated, slightly lower-priced quotation. DECISION Chicago Dryer Company (CDC) protests the issuance of an order to G.A. Braun, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 244-04-00123 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for laundry equipment at the VA Medical Center laundry facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. CDC objects to the agency's evaluation of its and Braun's quotations. We deny the protest. VA issued the RFQ on January 6, 2004 to procure two machines for folding and stacking laundry, accompanied by training materials. The RFQ specified that –[e]quipment and materials shall be suitable for installation in available space— and that the contractor must remove existing laundry equipment to be utilized as a trade-in. RFQ at 2-3. The solicitation also stated that the successful vendor should –make a site visit to determine what equipment, if any, may need to be moved and reinstalled.— RFQ at 2-12. Prior to submitting its quotation, CDC sent a representative to visit the site, taking note of the building footprint and equipment layout. With regard to the evaluation process, the RFQ stated that VA did not intend to hold discussions with vendors before issuing an order, so quotations should contain the vendors' best terms from a price and technical standpoint. RFQ at 5-2. The RFQ advised that VA would select the quotation found to be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. RFQ amend. 2, at 5-7a. In addition to price, the RFQ listed two evaluation factors, technical capability and quality/past performance, which, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. Under the technical capability factor, the RFQ stated that a vendor's –[a]bility to provide functions that are not required by the specifications but described as 'preferred' may increase [the vendor's] rating for this factor.— Id. VA received four quotations in response to the RFQ. CDC's price was lowest at $137,530; Braun's price ($137,712) was second lowest, and only $182 higher than CDC's. The contracting officer appointed a technical evaluation panel (TEP) to evaluate the technical quotations submitted. Under the technical capability factor, the TEP gave Braun's quotation the maximum score of five points; CDC's quotation received four points. The TEP concluded that CDC's equipment met all the technical specifications in the RFQ, but expressed concern that the equipment would not fit properly in the assigned area and might –cause congestion of the work area and close off the pathway for cart movement.— Agency Report, exh. 5, attach. 1, at 2. With respect to Braun's quotation, the TEP concluded that Braun's equipment exceeded the specifications. The TEP emphasized that Braun's crossfolder and stacker could be linked with the microprocessing of the spreader feeder, and that this was a –preferred feature, although not required by the specifications.— Id. at 1. It also pointed out that Braun's equipment could be linked to VA's existing Washnet program, which would allow the VA supervisor to monitor performance and productivity closely. It called this a –very desirable feature.— Id.