Knoll, Inc.; Steelcase, Inc., B-294986.3; B-294986.4, March 18, 2005

Knoll, Inc.; Steelcase, Inc., B-294986.3; B-294986.4, March 18, 2005 TITLE: Knoll, Inc.; Steelcase, Inc., B-294986.3; B-294986.4, March 18, 2005 BNUMBER: B-294986.3; B-294986.4 DATE: March 18, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Knoll, Inc.; Steelcase, Inc. File: B-294986.3; B-294986.4 Date: March 18, 2005 John A. Burkholder, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for Knoll, Inc.; and Kenneth F. Oettle, Esq., Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross PC, for Steelcase, Inc., the protesters. Charles H. Carpenter, Esq., and Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, for Trade Products Corporation, an intervenor. Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., and Capt. William M. Pannier, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of offerors' technical proposals is denied where record shows that agency's evaluation was reasonable. DECISION Knoll, Inc. and Steelcase, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Trade Products Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2816-04-0013, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the Total Office Package and Relocation Effort (TOPRE) contract. Knoll and Steelcase each challenge the Air Force's evaluation of offerors' technical proposals, and Knoll further contends that the agency improperly awarded the contract because the current performance period of Trade Products' General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract expires prior to the end of the TOPRE contract performance period. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP anticipated award of a contract for new office furniture systems and office relocation services at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center at the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB). The effort will involve moving approximately 2,900 personnel at the LAAFB to new office facilities. The contractor will be responsible for relocation management, the provision and installation of new office furniture, the move effort, and personal computer disconnect/reconnect services. The contract base performance period is for approximately 2 years, with an option to extend the total period of performance to not more than 36 months. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror which provided a technically acceptable proposal that represented the "best value" to the government based on an assessment of past and present performance (recency and relevance), past performance quality, and performance confidence. RFP S M.2. Offerors were required to provide all required effort under GSA FSS contracts. RFP S L.1. Offerors were advised as follows: "The Technical Factor Proposal will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Failure in any part or area will result in failure of the Technical Factor Proposal. Only those offers determined to pass the Technical Factor Proposal evaluation will be considered for award." RFP S M.1.1. Offerors were required to demonstrate technical acceptability based on the following criteria: a. The Offeror's completed SOW [statement of work]/Proposal Cross Reference Matrix will be evaluated for compliance to contract requirements. Failure to meet any requirement will result in a "Fail" for the technical proposal. b. The Offeror's mock-ups will be evaluated for compliance to contract requirements where the typical [furniture system] can demonstrate compliance with a contract requirement. Failure of a typical [furniture system] to demonstrate a requirement will result in a "Fail" for the technical proposal. RFP S M.2.2.3. The agency received proposals from Steelcase, Knoll, Trade Products, and three other offerors. The agency initially awarded the contract to Steelcase on September 29, 2004. However, the agency cancelled that award following its decision sustaining an agency-level protest filed by Trade Products. The agency conducted additional discussions with offerors and received revised proposals. The agency subsequently selected Trade Products for award on December 3. Following their respective debriefings, Steelcase and Knoll filed protests of the award with our Office. DISCUSSION Steelcase argues that the agency improperly determined that its proposal was technically unacceptable. Knoll and Steelcase each contend that the agency failed to recognize flaws in the Trade Products technical proposal, and thus improperly found that firm's proposal technically acceptable.