Pitney Bowes, Inc.

B-416787 Dec 06, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pitney Bowes, Inc., of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Neopost USA Inc., of Milford, Connecticut, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1284010, which was issued by the Department of the Army under the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Schedule No. 36, for postage meter equipment. Pitney Bowes alleges that the Army unreasonably allowed Neopost to quote items from a different special item number (SIN) under its Schedule No. 36 contract rather than the SIN under which the RFQ was issued. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Pitney Bowes, Inc. File:  B-416787 Date:  December 6, 2018 William A. Shook, Esq., The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, for the protester. Major Ronald Herrmann, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, and Sarah Park, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agencies. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the agency erred in allowing the awardee to quote equipment under a special item number (SIN) from the awardee’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract rather than the SIN under which the solicitation was issued is denied where the solicitation did not identify an applicable SIN, and the awardee’s equipment was available under the awardee’s applicable FSS contract. DECISION Pitney Bowes, Inc., of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Neopost USA Inc., of Milford, Connecticut, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1284010, which was issued by the Department of the Army under the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Schedule No. 36, for postage meter equipment.  Pitney Bowes alleges that the Army unreasonably allowed Neopost to quote items from a different special item number (SIN) under its Schedule No. 36 contract rather than the SIN under which the RFQ was issued. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 9, 2018, the Army issued the RFQ for multiple commercial-off-the-shelf postage metering machines for approximately 40 Continental United States installations.  RFQ, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 1.[1]  The RFQ was issued via GSA’s e-Buy system to holders of SIN 50-205 under Schedule No. 36, but the RFQ did not incorporate or reference SIN 50-205 or otherwise identify an applicable SIN.  See, e.g., Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, GSA e-Buy RFQ Summary; Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts (COSF), ¶ 2(b).[2]  The RFQ provided that the Army sought both an “equipment rental/lease contract” and an “Operating Lease Plan (OLP),” but did not define either of these contractual arrangements.  RFQ, PWS, ¶¶ 1, 1.2.3.[3]  The RFQ anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract, with a 1-year base period, and four 1‑year options.  Id., ¶ 1.4.  Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, considering technical, past performance, and price.  RFQ, Instructions to Offerors, at 1‑2. Both Pitney Bowes and Neopost timely submitted quotations in response to the RFQ.  Relevant here, neither quotation referenced SIN 50-205.  Rather, Pitney Bowes’ quotation expressly represented that it was submitted pursuant to Schedule No. 36, SIN 51-1001, while Neopost’s quotation did not identify a particular SIN.  See COSF, ¶ 2(e).[4]  The Army proceeded to analyze both quotations to confirm that the offerors’ respective proposed equipment was on their respective Schedule No. 36 contracts, and the agency evaluated both quotations as technically acceptable.  Id.  Specifically, with respect to Neopost, the Army found that the required equipment was available under SIN 51-58B of Neopost’s Schedule No. 36 contract.  See Legal Memo. at 7-8; AR, Tab 23, GSA eLibrary Contract Listing for Schedule No. 36, SIN 51-58B.  On June 1, the Army originally selected Pitney Bowes’ quotation for award.  Following an agency-level protest filed by Neopost, however, the agency determined that corrective action was appropriate.  Specifically, the Army cancelled the award to Pitney Bowes, amended the RFQ to more clearly state the agency’s requirements with respect to the technical specifications for certain of the required equipment, and solicited revised quotations.  Id., ¶¶ 2(f)-(l). Pitney Bowes and Neopost timely submitted revised quotations.  As with their initial quotations, Pitney Bowes’ proposal represented that its quotation was submitted pursuant to SIN 51-1001, while Neopost’s quotation did not reference any particular SIN.