B-297077; B-297077.2, Haworth, Inc., November 23, 2005

B-297077; B-297077.2, Haworth, Inc., November 23, 2005 TITLE: B-297077; B-297077.2, Haworth, Inc., November 23, 2005 BNUMBER: B-297077; B-297077.2 DATE: November 23, 2005 ****************************************************** B-297077; B-297077.2, Haworth, Inc., November 23, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Haworth, Inc. File: B-297077; B-297077.2 Date: November 23, 2005 James J. McCullough, Esq., Deneen J. Melander, Esq., Steven A. Alerding, Esq., and Courtney J. Edmonds, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Michael A. Nemeroff, Esq., Patrick K. O'Keefe, Esq., Richard L. Larach, Esq., and Patrick F. Linehan, Esq., Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, for Herman Miller, Inc., an intervenor. Kenneth A. Redden, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where agency issued blanket purchase agreement for office furniture to vendor whose quotation did not comply with requirements of request for quotations. 2. Protest is sustained where agency evaluation of protester's quotation for furniture was based on purported weakness under one evaluation criterion, where quotation showed that vendor actually met (or even exceeded) that criterion, and protester was competitively prejudiced because evaluation showed quotations were considered very close under the technical evaluation. DECISION Haworth, Inc. protests the issuance of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Herman Miller, Inc. (HMI) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under a request for quotations (RFQ) for furniture, including design and installation, for the Potomac Yard Complex buildings in Crystal City, Virginia.[1] Protest at 1. Haworth objects that its quotation was misevaluated, and that the successful vendor's quotation was noncompliant with the terms of the RFQ. We sustain the protest. The EPA issued the RFQ on July 15, 2005 to six vendors holding contracts under General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Service (FSS) schedule 71 I for office furniture. The RFQ contemplated that the EPA would obtain its furniture as a single "Project," consisting of "the design and installation of approximately one thousand five hundred twenty (1,520) workstations and approximately one hundred eighty (180) private offices, along with conference rooms and miscellaneous furniture as noted in the counts provided." RFQ at 1.[2] In explaining the basis for vendor selection the RFQ stated that "[i]n accordance with FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] 8.404(d), award will be made to the GSA Schedule Contractor that offers the best value to the Government." RFQ at 34. Haworth agrees that the RFQ contemplated selection of a single vendor. Supplemental Protest at 4. The RFQ provided that "[a]ll evaluation factors and significant sub-factors that will affect the contract award and their relative importance, other than cost and price, when combined are significantly more important than cost and price. All technical evaluation factors are essentially equal in importance." RFQ at 34. The RFQ listed four technical evaluation factors: product, environmental factors, past performance, and management approach. RFQ at 33-34. After receipt of quotations from three vendors, including Haworth and HMI, the agency selected HMI as the strongest technical submission and second lowest overall cost. Agency Report (AR), Tab L, Memorandum to File, at 3. Haworth was ranked second on the basis of its technical submission and its quotation was priced higher than HMI's. The EPA issued a BPA to HMI on August 11. AR, Tab N, BPA No. GS-28F-8049H, at 1. On August 16, the EPA issued a unilateral modification, appearing to state that the BPA was an indefinite-quantity contract.[3] AR, Tab R, Mod. No. GS-28F-8049H/0001, at 2. The EPA provided a debriefing to Haworth on August 16, after which Haworth filed this protest on August 19. The agency notified our Office that the agency had determined to proceed with performance based on the best interests of the government. Letter from EPA Protest Control Officer to GAO (Aug. 31, 2005). The procurement was conducted as a competition among selected FSS contractors, and the RFQ invoked FAR sect. 8.404(d). Under the FSS program, agencies are not required to conduct a competition before selecting a vendor that represents the best value and meets the agency's needs at the lowest overall cost. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.