B-298957, 3SG Corporation, January 5, 2007

B-298957 Jan 05, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights 3SG Corporation protests the issuance of an order to Xerox Corporation under that firm's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 176078, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for a scanning and archival solution for the VA's Healthcare and Regional Office at the VA Medical Center (VMAC) in Anchorage, Alaska. We sustain the protests. View Decision B-298957, 3SG Corporation, January 5, 2007 Decision Matter of: 3SG Corporation File: B-298957 Date: January 5, 2007 Jasmine Sornabala, Esq., for the protester. Dennis Foley, Esq., Philip Kauffman, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency improperly rejected a quotation for failing to comply with a solicitation requirement that the services be performed at the agency's facility, where the quotation expressly stated that the firm would perform the services at the agency's facility, and the agency's interpretation of other terms of the quotation as taking exception with this requirement was unreasonable. DECISION 3SG Corporation protests the issuance of an order to Xerox Corporation under that firm's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 176078, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for a scanning and archival solution for the VA's Healthcare and Regional Office at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Anchorage, Alaska. We sustain the protest. The RFQ described the estimated 75,000 pages of documents to be scanned and archived as in –good condition— and –on white and color paper stock,— and provided that –[f]inal format for delivery will be PDF Searchable Text format.— The solicitation set forth a number of –Scanning & Archival requirements,— stating, for example, that –[i]maging will be performed at the Veterans Administration facility in Anchorage, Alaska,— and that the –[e]xact reassembly of hardcopy documents is requested.—[1] RFQ at 2. Vendors were requested to describe, among other things, their approach to accomplishing the work required, as well as their –project team,— RFQ at 5, and were requested to complete a price schedule setting forth certain unit and extended prices for the estimated quantities listed. RFQ at 7. The agency received quotations from only 3SG and Xerox Corporation, with 3SG's quotation providing a total price of $27,302.50, and Xerox's quotation providing a total price of $102,615. Agency Report (AR), Tab L, Worksheet. The agency concluded, after reviewing 3SG's quotation, that it was unclear whether 3SG would perform the required services at the VA facility in Anchorage as required, and issued the order to Xerox. AR at 2, Tab K, E-mail (Sept. 28, 2006). In this regard, the agency, while noting that 3SG's quotation expressly provided that –[i]maging services (document prep, scan, quality check and image load) will be performed at the Veterans Administration facility in Anchorage, AK,— found that 3SG's quotation contained certain references that –suggested documents would be sent off site— by 3SG, thus rendering the quotation unacceptable. AR at 2; Tab J, 3SG Quotation, at 2. The protester argues that its quotation clearly provided that the services would be performed at the VA facility in Anchorage, and that it should have received the order. When an agency issues a solicitation under the FSS program, we will review the agency's evaluation of vendor submissions to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. SI Int'l, SEIT, Inc., B'297381.5; B-297381.6, July 19, 2006, 2006 para. CPD 114 at 11; COMARK Fed. Sys., B'278343; B-278343.2, Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 34 at 4-5. Here, the RFQ did not identify any evaluation criteria or the basis for award. Nevertheless, it is clear from the record that the agency evaluated quotations for compliance with the requirements of the RFQ, and issued the order to the vendor submitting the low priced, compliant quotation. Since the protester challenges the determination that its quotation was unacceptable, we review that determination for reasonableness. The agency cites to a number of references in 3SG's quotation in support of its conclusion that the quotation, while expressly providing that the work would be performed at the VA's facility in Anchorage, also indicated that the work would be performed –off site.—[2] For example, the agency points out that 3SG's quotation included a –Client Participation— section, where 3SG detailed certain assumptions it had made with regard to the –support and feedback— it would receive from the VA –during the planning and execution of the project.— AR at 2, 4; Tab J, 3SG Quotation, at 8.