Integration Technologies Group, Inc., B-295958; B-295958.2, May 13, 2005

Integration Technologies Group, Inc., B-295958; B-295958.2, May 13, 2005 TITLE: Integration Technologies Group, Inc., B-295958; B-295958.2, May 13, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295958; B-295958.2 DATE: May 13, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Integration Technologies Group, Inc. File: B-295958; B-295958.2 Date: May 13, 2005 David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O'Brien, Esq., Rowena E. Laxa, Esq., and Catherine K. Kroll, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for the protester. James H. Roberts, III, Esq., and Carrol H. Kinsey, Jr., Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC, and Grace Bateman, Esq., and Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for Electronic Vision Access Solutions, an intervenor. Maura C. Brown, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably eliminated from the competitive range a proposal for a computer system for use by blind veterans that included a 107-key keyboard instead of the 104-key keyboard required by the solicitation. 2. Agency reasonably made a nonavailability determination waiving application of the Trade Agreements Act, 19 U.S.C. SS 2501-81 (2000), to a procurement, where award was to be made on a group basis and all proposals included components that were not acquired from the United States or designated countries. DECISION Integration Technologies Group, Inc. (ITG) protests the award of a contract to Electronic Vision Access Solutions (EVAS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-NC-04-0004, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for computers for blind veterans. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for award of a requirements contract for a base year with four 1-year options. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis, considering (in descending order of importance) technical, price, past performance, and small disadvantaged business utilization criteria. The technical factor consisted of subfactors for ease of use, connectors and controls easily differentiated by touch, experience and training of technical representatives in working with blind and low vision veterans, and compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. S 794d (2000). The solicitation announced that only one award would be made under the RFP. The RFP estimated that the VA would order 1,000 computers for use by blind veterans at VA medical centers nationwide. The solicitation requested unit and extended prices for the line items. There was a separate line item for the computer hardware system (which included such things as the operating system, keyboard, mouse, CD-Rom drive, floppy drive, hard drive, Intel Pentium processor, RAM memory, USB ports, video card, network card, sound card, mouse pad, speakers, modem, surge protector, and mini-tower case) and nine other line items for the accompanying flat screen monitors, printers, mouse track ball, scanners, and software. While the components of the hardware system line item were not listed as separate line items, some components were specified as brand name or equal products and were required to comply with mandatory "salient characteristics" in the RFP. For example, the RFP specified that the keyboard had to be a "Microsoft with 104 keys (or equal product)" and identified "104 keys" as the "salient characteristic" for the "brand name or equal" keyboard. RFP at 15, 19. In response to an offeror's question, the agency indicated that a "Windows 104 keyboard" was required. RFP amend. 6, Q&A No. 17. The RFP also required that the offered computer comply with the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), 19 U.S.C. SS 2501-81 (2000), which, as implemented by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), generally requires that "end products" be acquired from the United States or designated countries. 19 U.S.C. S 2512(a)(1)(A); FAR S 25.403(c). ITG and EVAS were among 10 offerors that responded to the RFP. None of the proposals fully complied with the TAA; all offered hardware systems and other line item equipment with one or more components that were made in non-designated countries, and the agency determined, on that basis, that the offered "end products" were not from designated countries or the United States. In accordance with the TAA and relevant FAR provisions, the agency made a "nonavailability determination" to exempt the procurement from TAA compliance, and proceeded with the evaluation of the proposals and award. AR, Tab 9, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 2. As determined by the agency, the three highest technically rated proposals were submitted by EVAS, [REDACTED], and ITG. EVAS's proposal, priced at $15,324,455, was the lowest priced and one of the two highest technically rated proposals.