B-298975, Stewart Distributors, January 17, 2007

B-298975 Jan 17, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Stewart Distributors protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Balfurd, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 244-06-01362 REV issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for bulk laundry/linen services at the VA Medical Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Stewart contends that rejection of its proposal was improper. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298975, Stewart Distributors, January 17, 2007 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: Stewart Distributors File: B-298975 Date: January 17, 2007 James B. Lieber, Esq., and Thomas M. Huber, Esq., Lieber & Hammer, PC, for the protester. Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Dennis Foley, Esq., and Philip Kauffman, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency properly rejected proposal for bulk laundry/linen services as technically unacceptable where proposal did not clearly indicate the protester's intention to comply with the solicitation's quality standards. DECISION Stewart Distributors protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Balfurd, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 244-06-01362 REV issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for bulk laundry/linen services at the VA Medical Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Stewart contends that rejection of its proposal was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on May 12, 2006 and contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for a 1-year base period and three 1-year option periods. As amended, the RFP provided for a –best value— award. The RFP listed the following evaluation factors--past performance, technical/management approach to performance, personnel, and price--and advised offerors that past performance, technical/management, and personnel, when combined, were significantly more important than price. The RFP also advised offerors that the agency intended to evaluate offers and make award without discussions, but reserved the right to conduct discussions if the contracting officer determined that to be necessary. RFP at 90. As noted above, the solicitation sought proposals to provide bulk laundry/linen services for the VA Medical facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stating: Contractor shall furnish all clean linen items, labor, equipment, supervision, management, supplies, soiled linen carts and liners, bulk delivery carts, transportation, and facilities . . . necessary to perform complete and all-inclusive contractor owned/contractor operated bulk laundry linens services for the Department of Veterans Affairs. . . . All services are to be performed in accordance with standard industry practices and quality control measures and all requirements herein. RFP at 4. More specifically, with regard to quality of performance, the solicitation established an –Acceptable Quality Level— or –AQL— for each of various aspects of contract performance; in this regard, the RFP expressly defined AQL as –the maximum percent of defective work, or number of defects that will be allowed before work is considered unsatisfactory.— RFP at 31, 50-51. Specifically, under the heading –Performance Requirements Summary,— the solicitation contained a table that identified various quality standards applicable to various contract requirements. RFP at 50-51. For example, the solicitation provided that the performance standard for cleaning laundry was: –Laundry is clean, dry, free of lint and odor, spots and stains removed.— RFP at 50. Directly next to this standard the solicitation provided that the –AQL Maximum Allowable Degree of Deviation— is –5% per month.— Id.Similarly, with regard to damaged items, the solicitation established the following standard: –Laundered items are not physically damaged due to improper processing or carelessness.— Directly next to this standard, the solicitation provided that the –AQL Maximum Allowable Degree of Deviation— for this requirement was –2.5% per month.— RFP at 51. Four proposals, including one submitted by Stewart, were submitted by the August 4, 2006 closing time. In its proposal, Stewart provided a table under the heading –Quality Standards,— in which Stewart listed various performance standards to be applied to particular items to be laundered. Agency Report (AR), Tab 15, Stewart Technical Proposal,[1] at 37-39. With regard to the solicitation requirements related to stained and damaged items, Stewart's proposal contained quality standards that varied from, and were less restrictive than, the standards established in the solicitation.