B-297077.3, Environmental Protection Agency--Reconsideration, January 25, 2006

B-297077.3 Jan 25, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asks that we reconsider our decision in Haworth, Inc., B297077, B-297077.2, Nov. 23, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 215, in which we sustained Haworth's protest of the EPA's issuance of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Herman Miller, Inc. (HMI) under a request for quotations (RFQ) for furniture, including design and installation, for the Potomac Yard Complex buildings in Crystal City, Virginia. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision B-297077.3, Environmental Protection Agency--Reconsideration, January 25, 2006 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: Environmental Protection Agency--Reconsideration File: B-297077.3 Date: January 25, 2006 Kenneth A. Redden, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where, in establishing a blanket purchase agreement under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program, an agency conducts a competition, including issuing to FSS contractors a solicitation with a statement of work and evaluation criteria, the agency is not free to disregard either the requirements stated in the solicitation or its evaluation criteria. DECISION The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asks that we reconsider our decision in Haworth, Inc., B'297077, B-297077.2, Nov. 23, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 215, in which we sustained Haworth's protest of the EPA's issuance of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Herman Miller, Inc. (HMI) under a request for quotations (RFQ) for furniture, including design and installation, for the Potomac Yard Complex buildings in Crystal City, Virginia. We deny the request for reconsideration. The RFQ was issued to six vendors holding contracts under General Services Administration 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 design and installation of some 1,520 workstations and 180 private offices, along with conference rooms and miscellaneous furniture. The RFQ contemplated award of the BPA on a –best value— basis considering cost/price and four equally-weighted technical evaluation factors--product, environmental factors, past performance, and management approach. Non-price factors, combined, were considered significantly more important than cost/price. After receipt of quotations from three vendors, including Haworth and HMI, the agency selected HMI as the vendor that had provided the strongest technical submission and second-lowest overall cost. Haworth, whose quotation was priced higher than HMI's, was ranked second technically. The EPA issued a BPA to HMI and subsequently issued a unilateral modification, appearing to state that the BPA was an indefinite-quantity contract. Haworth filed a protest with our Office challenging the technical evaluations, specifically asserting that HMI's quotation was technically unacceptable and that the evaluators improperly downgraded Haworth's quotation. In sustaining Haworth's protest, we found that the EPA had erroneously concluded that HMI's quotation met requirements for chair-stacking capacity and provision of Forest Stewardship Council-certified wood conference tables.[1] We also found that the agency had erroneously downgraded Haworth's quotation under the –environmental factors— evaluation factor. We concluded that the EPA appeared to have overstated its actual needs as evidenced by the fact that it either did not consider certain requirements to be significant to its overall needs, or that some items that deviated from the requirements were acceptable. Our Bid Protest Regulations require that a party requesting reconsideration show that our prior decision contains either errors of fact or of law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.14(a) (2005). In requesting reconsideration, EPA asserts that our decision contains an error of law regarding the standard of review of this procurement. In this regard, our decision stated the following (at 3): 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. 8.404(a); Computer Prods., Inc., B'284702, May 24, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 95 at 4.