B-310790, C&H SERVICE Srl, February 5, 2008

B-310790 Feb 05, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights C&H SERVICE Srl protests the Department of the Air Force's rejection of its proposal, and the award of a contract to Sanson Bruno, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FS5682-07-R-0030, for furnishing and installing air conditioning units. C&H primarily asserts that the agency improperly determined that the firm's proposed units did not meet the RFP's requirement that the units be listed on a certification website. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310790, C&H SERVICE Srl, February 5, 2008 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: C&H SERVICE Srl File: B-310790 Date: February 5, 2008 Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., and Scott H. Gdanski, Esq., Gdanski & Gdanski, LLP, for the protester. Gary R. Allen, Esq., Candice D. Cleere, Esq., and Neil Whiteman, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably rejected protester's proposal where proposed item did not meet solicitation requirement for listing on specified certification website; agency reasonably disregarded protester's claim that proposed item was identical to another item listed on website where only supporting evidence was from protester and its suppliers. DECISION C&H SERVICE Srl protests the Department of the Air Force's rejection of its proposal, and the award of a contract to Sanson Bruno, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FS5682-07-R-0030, for furnishing and installing air conditioning units. C&H primarily asserts that the agency improperly determined that the firm's proposed units did not meet the RFP's requirement that the units be listed on a certification website. We deny the protest. On July 25, 2007, the Air Force issued the RFP for certain air conditioning units (units capable of both cooling and heating) to be installed at locations surrounding Aviano Air Base, Italy. The RFP required the units to meet various specifications, including that they be –EUROVENT certified— in a certain class, and that the air conditioner data be available at the website www.eurovent-certification.com. [1] AR, Tab 18, at 1. In response to the RFP, the agency received six proposals, including the protester's and the awardee's. While the protester proposed one item at a single price, the awardee proposed six different brands of air conditioner at different prices, with four priced lower than the protester's. The other four proposals were eliminated from the competition for reasons not relevant here. The agency then sought information from C&H and Sanson Bruno regarding their proposed items' Eurovent certification. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1. The agency determined that the awardee's four lowest-priced items were not Eurovent certified. With regard to the fourth lowest priced item, the agency requested product information from Sanson Bruno, and ultimately concluded that this item was not listed on the Eurovent website. The agency then requested information from C&H. The protester responded with a statement from another firm--apparently the supplier of the units to C&H--that the units were –from Bonaga Italia, brand Sermond, Model SRF 12 H registered with Eurovent under the serial number MSH 12HRN1.— AR, Tab 13, B, at 3. The agency subsequently searched the Eurovent website and discovered that the brand name associated with this model number actually was Midea, manufactured by GD Midea Air Conditioning Company, Ltd. There was no mention of the brand name Sermond on the website. Legal Memorandum at 3. The agency then questioned C&H about its product a second time, and the protester responded with two more certifications, one from itself and one from Bonaga Italia. Both certifications stated that the proposed unit was marketed with the brand Sermond by Bonaga Italia, and was certified under the code MSH 12HRN1 of GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Company, Ltd. on the Eurovent certification website. Based on this exchange, the agency concluded that the protester's proposal was ineligible for award because there was no item under the Sermond brand listed on the Eurovent website. The agency thus made award to Sanson Bruno for its fifth lowest-priced unit, which was listed on the Eurovent website, at a price higher than C&H's. Upon learning that the agency had determined that its product was ineligible for award, C&H filed this protest. C&H primarily asserts that it should have received the award because its proposed unit actually was listed on the Eurovent website.