B-297234.2; B-297234.3, Wiltex Inc., December 27, 2005

B-297234.2; B-297234.3, Wiltex Inc., December 27, 2005 TITLE: B-297234.2; B-297234.3, Wiltex Inc., December 27, 2005 BNUMBER: B-297234.2; B-297234.3 DATE: December 27, 2005 ****************************************************** B-297234.2; B-297234.3, Wiltex Inc., December 27, 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: Wiltex Inc. File: B-297234.2; B-297234.3 Date: December 27, 2005 Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, PLLC, for the protester. Merilee D. Rosenberg, Esq., and Philip Kauffman, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's selection decision is sustained where the record shows that the awardee's proposal failed to address material solicitation requirements and that the agency failed to treat offerors equally by making award to the awardee despite the deficiencies in its proposal, while finding the protester's proposal unacceptable for similar deficiencies. DECISION Wiltex Inc. protests the award of a contract to Medical Gas Technology (MGT) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 528A7-33-05, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for installation of a scroll medical air compressor unit at the Syracuse, New York, VA Medical Center. The protester contends that the agency improperly awarded to MGT on the basis of a proposal that failed to address all material solicitation requirements. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered, with past performance and technical, when combined, of equal importance to delivery availability and price. RFP at 22. The RFP advised offerors that the agency intended to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions, but reserved to the agency the right to conduct discussions if determined by the contracting officer to be necessary. The solicitation defined the "performance requirements--salient characteristics" of the unit sought; among the requirements were the following pertaining to warranty and warranty service: Contractor to provide 36 month warranty, onsite staff training, and proof that the installer of the medical air system have a minimum of 5 years experience of installing medical air systems, able to provide 24 hours onsite warranty service within 2 hours of being notified; and Guarantee from manufacturer that medical air system will have replacement parts available for a minimum of 10 years from date of installation. RFP at 7. Elsewhere, the RFP instructed offerors to include the following information in their technical proposals, with the admonition that "failure to address any one of the items listed may result in the rejection of the offer": 1. Availability of parts, diagnostic software and equipment: Document location of stocked parts and delivery time. Identify and document source of supply and average delivery time for items not stocked. State manufacturer guarantee for length of time they will support medical air system. 2. Ability to meet response time listed in the specification: Describe plans to meet the response times listed in the specification. Demonstrate evidence of company's ability to respond to emergency situation and fully discuss the staffing managerial plans to be implemented to meet the response time specified. 3. Conformance to the latest specifications document and list any discrepancies between the proposed medical air system and the specifications. 4. Describe in detail the rigging, installation, and test process being proposed to install the medical air system. RFP at 20-21. The RFP also instructed offerors that "[t]he proposal should describe the past experience of the company in providing maintenance on the equipment specified in this solicitation within the past three (3) years." RFP at 21. Six proposals were received by the September 1, 2005 closing date. According to the contracting officer, he "made a decision to include 5 of the 6 proposals received in the competitive range." Contracting Officer's Statement, Nov. 1, 2005, at 1. Wiltex's proposal was one of those included.