UNISET Company, LLC

B-411792 Sep 11, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights UNISET Company, LLC, of Rochester, New York, a small business, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Virtualsets.com, Inc., of Los Angeles, California, by the Department of the Air Force under request for quotations (RFQ) No. F1SEAA5112B101 for an expandable horizontal radius quick seam modular cyclorama system1 for the Air Force Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, California. UNISET argues that the Air Force unreasonably evaluated the firm's quotation as unacceptable, and misevaluated the awardee's price. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  UNISET Company, LLC File:  B-411792 Date:  September 11, 2015 Sean Martin, UNISET Company, LLC, for the protester. Lt. Col. Matthew J. Mulbarger, Capt. Christopher M. Kovach, Kevin A. Doherty, Esq., and Martin N. O’Brien, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s quotation for seamless “green screen” system is denied where record shows that agency reasonably evaluated protester’s system as unacceptable based on photograph in protester’s quotation that showed visible, noticeable seams.  DECISION UNISET Company, LLC, of Rochester, New York, a small business, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Virtualsets.com, Inc., of Los Angeles, California, by the Department of the Air Force under request for quotations (RFQ) No. F1SEAA5112B101 for an expandable horizontal radius quick seam modular cyclorama system[1] for the Air Force Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, California.  UNISET argues that the Air Force unreasonably evaluated the firm’s quotation as unacceptable, and misevaluated the awardee’s price.  We deny the protest.  The Air Force issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside under a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items on May 20, 2015.  RFQ at 1.[2]  The RFQ sought quotations to supply a modular cyclorama system, and specified delivery as “14 DARO” [days after receipt of order].  RFQ at 2.  The RFQ described the requirement as “Brand Name or Equal,” but it did not identify a brand name item, although it did list “MINIMUM SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS.”  RFQ at 1.  For the system’s “wall” component, the RFQ specified that the item have a “[s]eamless wall to wall and wall to floor curved transition.”  RFQ at 2.  For the “floor” component, the RFQ specified that it have a “[s]eamless wall to floor curved transition.”  Id.  Offerors were directed to “submit in writing a complete quote,” and “to submit with their quote enough information for the Government to evaluate the minimum requirements detailed in this synopsis.”  Id.  Ultimately, the RFQ provided that the lowest-priced technically acceptable quotation would be selected for award, where technical acceptability was defined as “meeting all minimum salient characteristics.”  Id. at 3.  By the RFQ closing date on June 12, the Air Force had received quotations from UNISET, Virtualsets.com, and a third vendor.  UNISET quoted its UNI-CYC model at a price of $15,629, and included a photograph of its system as installed at a commercial broadcasting studio.  Agency Report (AR) Tab 5, UNISET Quotation, at 2.  Virtualsets.com quoted its cyclorama system at a price of $19,591.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1.  On June 15, the contracting specialist provided UNISET’s quotation to an evaluator for review, who responded that the quotation was unacceptable and then, prepared a memorandum on June 22 explaining that UNISET’s quotation did not provide a system with the required seamless background.  AR, Tab 7, E-mails between Contracting Specialist & Chief of Public Affairs Graphic Arts (June 15-22, 2015), at 4 (Undated Evaluation Memorandum).  The memorandum stated that the requirement for a seamless system was necessary to achieve consistent lighting to ensure the proper effect and sound reflection properties.  Id.  The memorandum also explained that the UNISET quotation showed a system in which “all seam joints are visible,” which was unacceptable because it would necessitate significant hours in post-production to eliminate the resulting “on-screen noise” and to attempt to balance the lighting.  Id. On July 1, the Air Force issued a purchase order to Virtualsets.com as the firm that submitted the lowest-priced technically acceptable quotation.  On July 13, Virtualsets.com delivered the system, and the Air Force accepted it and directed payment.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3.  According to the Air Force, UNISET requested a debriefing on July 14, which was provided on July 16.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3.[3]  On July 17, UNISET filed this protest.  ANALYSIS In its protest, UNISET argues that the firm’s solution would work, and there...