Bridges System Integration, LLC

B-411020 Apr 23, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bridges System Integration, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal submitted in response to solicitation No. 3FNG-RG-020001-B (schedule 58 solicitation), issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the award of contracts under multiple award schedule No. 58 for the provision of commercial audio/video products. Bridges argues that the agency's interpretation of the solicitation's terms is unduly restrictive of competition, and that the agency evaluated Bridges' proposal in an unfair and unequal manner. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: Bridges System Integration, LLC File: B-411020 Date: April 23, 2015 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Kathleen K. Barksdale, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of the rejection of a protester’s proposal under a General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (GSA FSS) solicitation is denied where the agency reasonably found that the proposal failed to comply with the solicitation’s material requirements for information, and the protester refused to provide the information when the agency expressly requested it. 2. Protest challenging the propriety of the terms of an open GSA FSS solicitation as unduly restrictive of competition is untimely as to a proposal already submitted. 3. Protest challenging the prospective application of the terms of a GSA FSS solicitation for future evaluations as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the challenged terms are reasonably related to ensuring compliance with mandatory statutory requirements. DECISION Bridges System Integration, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal submitted in response to solicitation No. 3FNG-RG-020001-B (schedule 58 solicitation), issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the award of contracts under multiple award schedule No. 58 for the provision of commercial audio/video products. Bridges argues that the agency’s interpretation of the solicitation’s terms is unduly restrictive of competition, and that the agency evaluated Bridges’ proposal in an unfair and unequal manner. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP at issue here is “Refresh 22” of the solicitation for schedule No. 58 of the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), which is a standing solicitation for the provision of professional audio/video, telemetry/tracking, recording, reproducing and signal data solutions,[1] first issued in 2002. Bridges is seeking a schedule 58 contract, so that it can provide commercial audio/video products to federal agencies under the FSS program.[2] Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 1. The schedule 58 solicitation contains requirements for all offerors of products seeking GSA FSS contracts, and cautions that any failure to comply with the requirements will result in rejection of the offer. Schedule 58 Solicitation at iv-x, xiv. The requirements include submission of detailed pricing for each of the products offered, to enable the contracting officer to determine if the offered prices are fair and reasonable. Id., § SCP-FSS-001(j)(3)(iv). As part of the price submission, offerors are to provide sufficient supporting documentation to show a “clear and relevant relationship between the supporting document and the proposed price it was meant to substantiate.” Id., § SCP-FSS-001(j)(3)(iii). Offerors are also required to submit manufacturers’ part numbers, and are warned that if they fail to do so, an award will not be made for that part. Id. Furthermore, if an offeror is not the manufacturer of the products being proposed, the offeror must provide a letter of commitment or supply, otherwise the proposal might be rejected. Id., § SCP-FSS-003(d)(1)(iii). Finally, as relevant here, the solicitation requires that all proposed products comply with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA) (19 U.S.C. § 2501 et seq.).[3] Id., § SCP-FSS-003(d)(1)(ii). Currently, there are approximately 200 schedule 58 contract holders. CO’s Statement at 6. Bridges submitted a proposal in response to the schedule 58 solicitation on December 22, 2014. CO’s Statement at 1. With respect to the requirements listed above, Bridges’ proposal did not describe any particular products and did not include any price lists, manufacturers’ letters of supply, or country of origin for any products that the protester intended to furnish. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Bridges’ Proposal.