CI Filing Systems, LLC

B-411012 Apr 17, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CI Filing Systems, LLC, (CFS) of Totowa, New Jersey, protests the Government Printing Office's (GPO) rejection of the bid CFS submitted in response to invitation for bids (IFB) No. 386-060S R-1 (also referred to as "Jacket 386-060S R-1") seeking bids to provide "A-File" folders for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). CFS challenges the agency's determination that CFS's bid was nonresponsive to the solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: CI Filing Systems, LLC File: B-411012 Date: April 17, 2015 Corey J. Hogan, Esq., and Randy C. Mallaber, Esq., HoganWillig, for the protester. Roy E. Potter, Esq., and Melissa A. Pachikara, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation sought bids for file folders with embedded fasteners, and provided that adhesive fasteners were unacceptable, the agency reasonably rejected protester’s bid as nonresponsive based on the agency’s determination that the protester was offering to provide file folders with adhesive fasteners. DECISION CI Filing Systems, LLC, (CFS) of Totowa, New Jersey, protests the Government Printing Office’s (GPO) rejection of the bid CFS submitted in response to invitation for bids (IFB) No. 386-060S R-1 (also referred to as “Jacket 386-060S R-1”) seeking bids to provide “A-File” folders for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).[1] CFS challenges the agency’s determination that CFS’s bid was nonresponsive to the solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency published the IFB at issue in September 2014, seeking bids to provide file folders that complied with various requirements, including a requirement that the folders have “embedded” metal fasteners. Protest, exh. A, Solicitation, at 6. More specifically, the solicitation contained the following notation directly below the specifications for fasteners: NOTE: Fasteners MUST be permanently embedded within the folder leaves. Glue-on or Adhesive type fasteners will not be accepted. [[2]]   Id. (bolding and capitalization in original). On or before the September 9 closing date, bids were submitted by various offerors, including CFS and its sister corporation, IFS Filing Systems LLC (IFS).[3] Thereafter, GPO determined that CFS’s affiliate was the low bidder and, on September 16, issued a purchase order to IFS. Protest, exh. E, Timeline for Jacket 386-060, at 5. On October 8, IFS delivered pre‑production samples of the folders that included fasteners which IFS described as “Permclip bonded fastener[s].” Protest, exh. E, Letter from HoganWillig (Counsel for both IFS and CFS) to GPO Contracting Officer, Oct. 15, 2014, at 1. On October 10, following receipt and consideration of the pre-production samples, the GPO contracting officer issued a cure notice to IFS stating that the Permclip fasteners failed to comply with the terms of the solicitation, which required fasteners to be “embedded within the folder leaves.” Protest, exh. E, Timeline for Jacket 386‑060, at 6. The contracting officer concluded that the Permclip fasteners were “adhesive type fasteners” that the solicitation expressly identified as unacceptable. See Solicitation at 6. On October 14, counsel for IFS responded to the cure notice, arguing, among other things, that the Permclip fasteners should be considered “embedded” because they are attached to the folders using a “proprietary bonding medium.”[4] Protest, exh. E, Letter from HoganWillig to GPO Contracting Officer, Oct. 14, 2014, at 3. Alternatively, IFS asserted that, since various other federal government agencies have successfully used the Permclip fasteners, the contract should be modified to make the Permclip fasteners acceptable. In this regard, IFS presented a proposed contract modification, which stated: Change is hereby made in Purchase Order 92580, Jacket 386-060, as follows:   The Permclip Bonded/Welded Fastener shall be considered appropriate for this Jacket, in compliance with specifications. Protest, exh. E, IFS’s Proposed Contract Modification, Oct. 14, 2014. On November 5, the contracting officer again advised IFS that use of the Permclip fasteners failed to comply with the terms of the solicitation, noting that Permclip’s own website described them as “adhesive” fasteners. Protest, exh. E, Letter from HoganWillig to GPO, Nov. 10, 2014, at 5. On November 10, CFS responded, stating that the language on the Permclip website should not be considered because that language had been changed to represent that the bonding process “permanently embeds the fabric overlay deep into the folder fibers.” Id. Accordingly, CFS asserted that, “since [the] website has been changed . . .