Pitney Bowes Inc., B-294868; B-294868.2, January 4, 2005

Pitney Bowes Inc., B-294868; B-294868.2, January 4, 2005 TITLE: Pitney Bowes Inc., B-294868; B-294868.2, January 4, 2005 BNUMBER: B-294868; B-294868.2 DATE: January 4, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Pitney Bowes Inc. File: B-294868; B-294868.2 Date: January 4, 2005 Grace Bateman, Esq., and Amanda B. Weiner, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw, for the protester. Carmody A. Gaba, Esq., and Michael I. Goulding, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, for the agency. Carl L. Vacketta, Esq., Richard P. Rector, Esq., William J. Crowley, Esq., and David E. Fletcher, Esq., Piper Rudnick, for Neopost, Inc., an intervenor. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly canceled delivery order initially issued to protester is denied where protester's response to solicitation did not contain prices for all required line items. 2. Protest that agency improperly permitted successful vendor to submit revised pricing following initial submissions is denied where agency sought and received revised pricing from both protester and successful vendor. 3. Protest that successful vendor failed to acknowledge material amendments to solicitation is denied where successful vendor's submission indicated compliance with all material terms. 4. Protest that successful vendor's equipment does not comply with the solicitation requirements is denied where solicitation did not require detailed technical submissions and agency reasonably relied on general statements of compliance and descriptive literature submitted by successful vendor to conclude that its equipment complies with solicitation requirements. DECISION Pitney Bowes Inc. protests the issuance of a delivery order to Neopost, Inc. by the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 48269 for mailing system equipment and installation, maintenance, and training services. Pitney Bowes also objects to the cancellation of an initial delivery order that had been issued to Pitney Bowes. We deny the protest. The RFQ was issued in August 2004 and, as amended,[1] sought quotations from vendors holding Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts for commercial mailing equipment.[2] The RFQ provided that the mailing systems to be obtained under this solicitation must include the following line items: meter head, meter head base, scale, effective interface, software, training, training guides, removal/return of existing equipment, and equipment repair/replacement support. The RFQ provided specific quantities for each line item with regard to a base year and for each of four 1-year option periods. For each line item, the solicitation provided a space, under the heading ``unit price,'' for the vendor to submit its quotation and at the top of the pricing schedule vendors were directed to ``complete the following pricing.'' AR, Tab 3, at 1. The RFQ also advised offerors as follows: ``The number of units to be provided in the option years has not been determined[;] therefore the quantities identified in the option years are included only for the purpose of evaluating bids.'' AR, Tab 3, at 1 (bold in original). Finally, under the heading ``evaluation of offerors,'' the RFQ stated: ``The vendor who submits the Low bid, and obtain[s] a satisfactory past performance evaluation will be awarded subject contract.''[3] RFQ at 3. Only Pitney Bowes and Neopost submitted quotations. After reviewing the initial quotations, the contracting officer invited both vendors to submit revised pricing. Neopost submitted a set of revised pricing sheets on August 26. AR, Tab 5B, Neopost Pricing, at 6-7. Pitney Bowes submitted its revised pricing, which it referred to as pricing ``correction,'' on August 29. AR, Tab 4B, Pitney Bowes Pricing, at 1-2. Thereafter, CBPA determined that the quotation submitted by Pitney Bowes was lower-priced, and issued a delivery order to Pitney Bowes on August 30. AR, Tab 8, Delivery Order, at 1. On September 7, CBP canceled the August 30 delivery order on the basis that Pitney Bowes had failed to submit pricing for several line items. Specifically, Pitney Bowes's submission did not reflect any pricing for the purchase of meter head bases or scales for any of the four option periods. AR, Tab 9, Termination Notice, at 1. CBP then issued an order dated September 9 to Neopost, which incorporated by reference the RFQ, and also ``Neopost Inc.'s proposal which responded to this RFQ with related FAX; and the three amendments to the RFQ.'' AR, Tab 23, Delivery Order, at 2.