Reagent World, Inc.

B-415490 Oct 23, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Reagent World, Inc., a small business, of Irvine, California, protests the award of a contract to 3Sixty Mission Critical LLC, a small business, of Madison, Wisconsin, under solicitation No. RFQPR11055944, which was issued by the Department of the Army, for a datacenter APC capacitor replacement. Reagent World challenges the Army's determination that its lowest-priced bid was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Reagent World, Inc. File:  B-415490 Date:  October 23, 2017 Ron Tash for the protester. Major Bruce L. Mayeaux, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s selection of a higher-priced, technically acceptable bid over the protester’s lower-priced bid is denied where the agency reasonably found that the protester’s bid failed to include material information required by the solicitation, and therefore was technically unacceptable. DECISION Reagent World, Inc., a small business, of Irvine, California, protests the award of a contract to 3Sixty Mission Critical LLC, a small business, of Madison, Wisconsin, under solicitation No. RFQPR11055944, which was issued by the Department of the Army, for a datacenter APC capacitor replacement.  Reagent World challenges the Army’s determination that its lowest-priced bid was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, which was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website on September 19, 2017, was for the acquisition of a commercial item under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 using simplified acquisition procedures under FAR Part 13.  Solicitation at 1.  Furthermore, the procurement was conducted as a reverse auction buy on FedBid.[1]  Id. at 2.  Award was to be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable bid.  Id. at 3. Relevant to the issues in this protest, both the FBO and FedBid websites included specific bid submission requirements pertaining to non-pricing information.  First, the bid submission instructions unequivocally required offerors to provide detailed information demonstrating that the offered equipment met or exceeded the solicitation’s minimum requirements.  Specifically, the FedBid instructions provided: In addition to providing pricing through [FedBid], Sellers MUST include certain non-pricing information as document(s) attached to their Bid . . . A Seller’s failure to comply with these terms may result in its Bid being determined to be non-responsive.  The attachment(s) must include the following non-pricing information:  Seller shall attach the documentation of the meet or exceed service description.  The attachment shall demonstrate that the product conforms to the salient characteristics attached to this [ ] solicitation. Request for Dismissal, exh. 3, FedBid Listing, at 2 (emphasis in original). Offerors were warned against merely copying the solicitation’s general description of the equipment being procured.  Specifically, both the FBO and FedBid websites instructed as follows: Attachment must not be cut and paste or copied from buyer[‘]s attached document.  It must be the seller[‘]s bid and detail relating to the solicitation characteristics.  Sellers who do not include their own attachment will not be evaluated. Solicitation at 3; Request for Dismissal, exh. 3, FedBid Listing, at 3. Reagent World expressly indicated that it had “read and understood” the above instructions pertaining to the attachment when it submitted its bid.  Request for Dismissal, exh. 4, Reagent World Bid, at 3. Second, the FedBid instructions also directed offerors to include detailed information in the description field that they were to fill out as part of their respective bids: The Buyer is allowing Sellers to submit bids that either meet or exceed the requested specification.  Sellers MUST enter exactly what they are bidding (including make, model, and description) into the blank description field in order for the bid to be considered. Request for Dismissal, exh. 3, FedBid Listing, at 2 (emphasis in original). As with the requirements for the attachment demonstrating that the offered equipment met or exceeded the solicitation’s requirements, Reagent World expressly indicated that it had “read and understood” the above instructions regarding providing specific make, model, and description information into the description field in order for the bid to be considered.  Request for Dismissal, exh.