G A Braun, Inc.

B-413735 Dec 21, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights G. A. Braun, Inc., of Syracuse, New York, protests the award of a contract to Western State Design, Inc. of Hayward, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA797R-15-R-0020, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the procurement and installation of a thermal fluid flatwork ironing system and a large piece blanket folding system to replace existing equipment at the VA's textile processing facility in Brockton, Massachusetts. Braun argues that the agency's evaluation of Braun's technical proposal was flawed. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  G. A. Braun, Inc. File:  B-413735 Date:  December 21, 2016 C. J. Spencer, G. A. Braun, Inc., for the protester. Maura C. Brown, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester’s proposal as technically unsatisfactory is denied where the record provides no basis to question the agency’s evaluation. DECISION G. A. Braun, Inc., of Syracuse, New York, protests the award of a contract to Western State Design, Inc. of Hayward, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA797R-15-R-0020, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the procurement and installation of a thermal fluid flatwork ironing system and a large piece blanket folding system to replace existing equipment at the VA’s textile processing facility in Brockton, Massachusetts.[1]  Braun argues that the agency’s evaluation of Braun’s technical proposal was flawed. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on March 16, 2016, and contemplated the award of one or more contracts to the offeror whose proposal would be the most advantageous to the government, considering, in descending order of importance, price, technical excellence, and past performance factors.  RFP at 55-56.  The RFP provided that, when combined, the non-price factors were slightly more important than price.  Id. at 56.  As relevant here, the technical excellence factor contained three subfactors of equal importance:  ergonomics, space utilization, and installation timeline.  Id. Under the ergonomics subfactor, the RFP established that proposals would be evaluated based on the level of human effort required to complete the tasks as designed for equipment operation.  Id.  Proposals would be rated higher for information that demonstrated reductions in stress and repetitive motion.  Id. The RFP provided that, under the space utilization subfactor, proposals would be evaluated for efficient space utilization that showed satisfactory egress around all pieces of equipment.[2]  Id.  Additionally, the RFP required space utilization information provided by offerors to show that there were no bottlenecks with equipment offered that would affect overall production and space utilization.  Id.  The RFP further specified that units provide sufficient access for daily maintenance and cleanup with minimal adjustment of equipment or components, and that the footprint utilize available space to prevent additional construction, plumbing, electrical, or other utility connection.  Id. Under the installation timeline subfactor, the RFP provided that an offeror’s demolition and installation work schedule and phasing plan would be evaluated, and advised that the plan should provide sufficient detail to enable the agency to determine the effect on production and operations.  Id.  In this regard, the RFP noted that offerors should meet the contract minimum installation schedule, which included working only on weekends (if required), and indicated that a shorter installation time would be rated more highly.  Id.  The RFP also explained that the laundry operates 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, and advised that an offeror should ensure that its installation timeline creates as little down time as possible.  Id. The agency received two proposals in response to the RFP, submitted by the protester and the awardee.  Agency Report (AR) at 3.  The agency concluded that the equipment proposed by both offerors met the minimum technical requirements, and then evaluated proposals under the factors and subfactors described above.  Id.  The evaluation of the proposals for the ironing system and the blanket folder resulted in the following technical ratings, which are being presented in conjunction with the offerors’ proposed prices:   G.A.