B-310766, IVI Corp., January 23, 2008

B-310766 Jan 23, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IVI Corp. protests the award of a contract to Vacuum Precision Technologies under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7000-07-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a Multi-Layer Precision Optical Coating System. IVI argues that the agency failed to timely evaluate its proposal. The Air Force acknowledges that it temporarily lost IVI's proposal, but argues that it has now evaluated the proposal and reasonably determined that it is not technically acceptable. In response, IVI asserts that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310766, IVI Corp., January 23, 2008 Decision Matter of: IVI Corp. File: B-310766 Date: January 23, 2008 George J. Mackertich for the protester. Col. Timothy J. Cothrel, Steven R. Fuscher, Esq., and Col. Neil S. Whiteman, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preperation of this decision. DIGEST 1. Under brand name or equal procurement, the contracting agency's determination regarding whether an offered product is acceptable will not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable. 2. Offer of an –equal— product under brand name or equal solicitation was properly rejected where the technical information provided to the contracting agency failed to demonstrate that the –equal— product met all of the salient characteristics set forth in the solicitation. DECISION IVI Corp. protests the award of a contract to Vacuum Precision Technologies under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7000-07-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a Multi-Layer Precision Optical Coating System. IVI argues that the agency failed to timely evaluate its proposal. The Air Force acknowledges that it temporarily lost IVI's proposal, but argues that it has now evaluated the proposal and reasonably determined that it is not technically acceptable. In response, IVI asserts that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on June 11, 2007 as a brand name or equal solicitation including a detailed listing of salient characteristics. The RFP directed that proposals could be emailed or faxed to the attention of the contract specialist, and to contact the contracting officer in the contract specialist's absence. The agency received four proposals by the closing time of the solicitation. Two of the proposals were sent by email to the contract specialist, while the remaining two proposals, including IVI's, were sent by email to the contracting officer, despite the fact that the contract specialist was present on the closing date. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts, at 1. The contracting officer neglected to forward IVI's proposal to the contract specialist, though he did forward the other proposal he received. Id.The three proposals received by the contract specialist were sent to the customer for technical evaluation, and the customer determined that all three proposals that it reviewed were technically acceptable. Id.The award was made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror, Vacuum Precision Technologies, on September 8. IVI claims that it contacted the agency three times between the closing date of the solicitation and the date of the award, and that on each occasion it was informed that its proposal was under consideration. Protest, Tab 2, Telephone Log; Tab 3, Agency Protest, at 1-2. The agency has no record of this correspondence, however, both parties agree that IVI contacted the agency on October 10, to inquire as to the status of the solicitation, and was informed by the contracting officer that an award had been made on September 8, at a price higher than that of IVI's proposal. AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts, at 2. During the October 10 conversation with IVI, the contracting officer was unable to locate IVI's proposal and stated to IVI that its proposal had not been received by the agency. Id.; Protest, Tab 3, Agency Protest, at 2. IVI filed an agency-level protest of the award on October 15. In response to this protest the contracting officer conducted a search of the agency's records, which revealed that IVI had by email submitted a timely proposal of an –or equal— item. The contracting officer then immediately sent the proposal to the customer for technical evaluation.