BZ Defense, LLC

B-417656,B-417657 Sep 12, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BZ Defense, LLC, of Los Angeles, California, protests its exclusion from competition under requests for quotations (RFQs) No. 1353572 and 1353578, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for Armored Chevrolet Tahoes and Armored Ford F350s, respectively. The protester alleges that the agency erred in finding its quotations to be technically unacceptable on several bases. We deny the protests. 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:  BZ Defense, LLC File:  B-417656; B-417657 Date:  September 12, 2019 Sarah Reida, Esq., Legal Meets Practical, LLC, for the protester. Scott Gengras, Esq., and Erin Hufstetler, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency erred in finding quotations for armored vehicles to be technically unacceptable is denied where the solicitations required vendors to maintain original equipment manufacturer warranties, and the protester’s quotations did not address this requirement. DECISION BZ Defense, LLC, of Los Angeles, California, protests its exclusion from competition under requests for quotations (RFQs) No. 1353572 and 1353578, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for Armored Chevrolet Tahoes and Armored Ford F350s, respectively.  The protester alleges that the agency erred in finding its quotations to be technically unacceptable on several bases.[1] We deny the protests BACKGROUND On March 7, 2019, the agency issued the RFQs, seeking 10 armored Chevrolet Tahoes and 8 armored Ford F350s for use by the United States Air Force in various overseas locations.  RFQ No. 1353572 (Tahoe RFQ) at 1-2; RFQ No. 1353578 (F350 RFQ) at 1‑2.  The RFQs indicated that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between three evaluation factors:  (1) technical acceptability; (2) past performance; and (3) price.  Id.  The RFQs also provided that technical acceptability would be evaluated first, and each quotation would receive one of three ratings:  (1) does not meet; (2) meets; or (3) exceeds.  Id.  The RFQs noted that quotations receiving a rating of “does not meet” would not be evaluated further.  Id.  Additionally, the RFQ included a technical attributes matrix that identified several specific technical requirements, such as a requirement that the vendor must maintain the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and contractor warranties for the vehicles.  Tahoe RFQ at 3; F350 RFQ at 3-4. The protester submitted a timely quotation in response to both RFQs.  B-417656 Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3; B-417657 MOL at 3.  On May 8, the agency issued amendments to both RFQs, clarifying that responses must contain detailed descriptions of how the vendor intended to meet specific technical requirements, and that responses of “yes” would be deemed non-responsive.  B-417656 Agency Report (AR), exh. 5, SF‑30 Amendment, at 1; B-417657 AR, exh. 8, SF-30 Amendment, at 1.  The amendment also gave all vendors that had previously submitted quotations an opportunity to submit a revised quotation by May 27.  Id.  The protester submitted revised quotations in response to both RFQs.  B-417656 MOL at 3; B-417657 MOL at 3.  On June 4, the agency issued unsuccessful vendor letters to the protester for both RFQs, which indicated that the protester’s quotations were technically unacceptable for several reasons, including that the protester had not indicated that it would maintain the OEM warranties for the vehicles.  B-417656 AR, exh. 9, Unsuccessful Vendor Letter, at 1-3; B‑417657 AR, exh. 12, Unsuccessful Vendor Letter, at 1-3.  These protests followed. DISCUSSION The protester argues that the agency erred in finding its quotations technically unacceptable.[2]  See, e.g., B-4127657 Comments at 7-20.  Specifically, the protester contends that the agency erred in concluding that the protester’s quotations:  (1) did not address maintenance of OEM warranties; (2) failed to confirm that it would maintain the OEM appearance of the vehicle interiors; (3) did not adequately address passenger-side window operation.[3]  Id. Where an evaluation is challenged, our Office will not reevaluate quotations but instead will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  Lear Siegler Servs., Inc., B-280834, B-280834.2, Nov. 25, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 136 at 7.