Ricoh-USA

B-411888 Nov 10, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (KMBS), of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Lexmark International, Inc., of Lexington, Kentucky, pursuant to request for delivery order proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-15-R-1032, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Contracting Command, for the lease of multi-functional devices. KMBS challenges the agency's determination that its proposal was technically unacceptable and contends that the agency engaged in misleading discussions. 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:  Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. File:  B-411888 Date:  November 10, 2015 Mark R. Berry, Esq., Lori A. Lange, Esq., and Benjamin L. Williams, Esq., Peckar & Abramson, P.C., for the protester. Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Thomas K. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for Lexmark International, Inc., the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Kenneth Gilliland, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s determination that the protester submitted an unacceptable proposal is denied where the record confirms that the protester failed to describe its approach to transition during the phase-out period, as required by the solicitation. 2.  In a competition conducted among firms holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts, agency’s request for confirmation regarding whether proposed items and prices were included on offerors’ schedules constituted clarifications; agency was not required to conduct discussions where the solicitation contemplated making the award without discussions. DECISION Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (KMBS), of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Lexmark International, Inc., of Lexington, Kentucky, pursuant to request for delivery order proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN‑15‑R-1032, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Contracting Command, for the lease of multi‑functional devices.  KMBS challenges the agency’s determination that its proposal was technically unacceptable and contends that the agency engaged in misleading discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on May 1, 2015, to contract holders of GSA FSS 36, pursuant to the procedures set forth at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.[1]  RFP at 1.  The RFP sought proposals for the lease of 700 multi‑functional devices (MFD) (with fax, scan, print, and copy functionality) in support of the 99th Regional Support Command.  Id.  The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single, fixed-price delivery order with a 12‑month base period and four 12-month option periods.  Id.  Pursuant to the RFP, the delivery order would be issued on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, considering technical, past performance, and price.  RFP, attach. 4, Basis for Award, at 1.  To be considered for award, a proposal must be rated acceptable under the technical and past performance factors.  Id. With respect to the technical factor, the RFP instructed offerors to provide a “detailed discussion” of the offeror’s approach to meeting the solicitation requirements.  Id. at 8.  The RFP specifically identified eight areas that firms were to address in their proposals.  Of relevance to this protest, the program management approach required the offeror to “describe its approach for successful transition during the Phase[-]in/Phase[-]out (SOW [Statement of Work] sections C.13 and C.14) of the [order].”  Id.  The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate technical proposals for “[a]dequacy of [r]esponse” and “[f]easibility of [a]pproach.”  Id. at 2.  Further, the RFP warned that “[m]arginal levels of detail could indicate a lack of understanding concerning requirements” and that “[o]fferors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.”  Id.  In this respect, the RFP cautioned that “[u]nsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient.”  Id. The Army received four proposals, including KMBS’s, prior to the submission deadline.  Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts/Legal Memorandum (COSF/LM) at 4.  First, the agency sought clarifications from the offerors as to whether the proposed MFD models and prices were within each offeror’s GSA schedule.[2]  Id.