KARL STORZ Endoscopy-America, Inc. (FA8601-20-Q-0093 )

B-419404,B-419404.2 Feb 09, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights KARL STORZ Endoscopy-America, Inc. (Karl Storz), of El Segundo, California, protests the award of a contract to Stryker Communications under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8601-20-Q-0093, issued by the Department of the Air Force for an integrated operating room (IOR) system at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base medical center in Ohio. Karl Storz argues that the agency's evaluation of Stryker's quotation was unreasonable. 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:  KARL STORZ Endoscopy-America, Inc. File:  B-419404; B-419404.2 Date:  February 9, 2021 G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., Gary J. Campbell, Esq., and Lidiya Kurin, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, for the protester. Major Matthew W. Ramage-White, and Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation, including the cybersecurity requirement, is denied where the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the solicitation criteria. DECISION KARL STORZ Endoscopy-America, Inc. (Karl Storz), of El Segundo, California, protests the award of a contract to Stryker Communications under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8601-20-Q-0093, issued by the Department of the Air Force for an integrated operating room (IOR) system at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base medical center in Ohio.  Karl Storz argues that the agency’s evaluation of Stryker’s quotation was unreasonable.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND On May 4, 2020, the agency published a notice of intent to award a brand name contract, announcing its intent to issue the requirement for an IOR solution as a brand name justification under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13 for Stryker IOR equipment.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Notice of Intent to Award a Brand Name Contract at 3.  The notice was based on the agency’s determination that only Stryker was capable of providing the requirement, including replacement of surgical lights and booms, video integration system, and monitors in eleven operating rooms at the Wright‑Patterson medical center.  Id.; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  On May 11, 2020, Karl Storz challenged the notice of intent with the agency, asserting not only that it was capable of fulfilling the agency’s requirement, but also that Karl Storz was “currently the only company” that had a conditional authority to operate[1] (ATO-C) for a complete IOR solution sought by the agency.  AR, Tab 4, Notice of Intent of Brand Name Challenge at 1-2.  Additionally, Karl Storz stated that Stryker did not have an ATO covering all the items necessary to meet the requirement.  Id. at 2. Based on the information provided by Karl Storz, the Air Force requested additional information from Stryker concerning its system and its ATO status, and made a preliminary determination that Stryker’s ATO was sufficient to meet the agency needs.[2]  AR Tab 5, Stryker Email Exchange at 2; COS at 4.  Subsequently, based on the information provided by Karl Storz regarding its conditional ATO status, the agency decided to remove the brand name requirement for Stryker equipment and solicit this requirement on an unrestricted basis.  COS at 4. On July 14, 2020, the agency issued the RFQ under the simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items set forth in FAR subparts 12.6 and 13.5.  AR, Tab 12, RFQ, Vendor Instructions at 1; COS at 4.  The solicitation anticipated award of a fixed-price contract, on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the evaluation factors of cybersecurity, technical capability, and price.  AR, Tab 11, RFQ at 1, 4, 42; COS at 2, 4.  Vendors were instructed to submit quotations comprised of a narrative describing the vendor’s project management approach as well as line item pricing for equipment, integration, installation, and costs for at least one year of a full service standard warranty for all products offered.