Chicago American Manufacturing (W912DY-22-Q-0013)

B-420533,B-420533.2 May 23, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chicago American Manufacturing LLC (CAM), of Chicago, Illinois, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Inovo, Inc., of Brooklyn, New York, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912DY-22-Q-0013, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for new furniture. The protester asserts that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's quotation as technically acceptable. We sustain 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: Chicago American Manufacturing LLC File: B-420533; B-420533.2 Date: May 23, 2022 Daniel P. Graham, Esq., and Llewelyn M. Engel, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery LLP, for the protester. Todd M. Garland, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for Inovo, Inc., the intervenor. B. Seth Johnson, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s issuance of a delivery order to a firm under its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract is sustained where the awardee quoted a product under its FSS contract that does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. DECISION Chicago American Manufacturing LLC (CAM), of Chicago, Illinois, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Inovo, Inc., of Brooklyn, New York, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912DY-22-Q-0013, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for new furniture. The protester asserts that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee’s quotation as technically acceptable. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On November 16, 2021, the Army issued the RFQ under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to current holders of General Services Administration (GSA) schedule 71 (the furniture schedule) contracts. See Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The solicitation contemplated the award of a delivery order to a contractor who would supply, deliver, and install new furniture in four buildings at Camp Casey, South Korea. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4(a), RFQ at 19. The delivery order would be issued to the vendor whose quotation was technically acceptable and had the lowest total price. Id. The agency would evaluate quotations as acceptable or unacceptable under three evaluation criteria: technical evaluation, schedule, and past performance. See id. at 18-19. An acceptable quotation under the technical evaluation criterion meets the specifications shown in the Furniture Item Description (FID), amendment 1, attachment 2 to the RFQ. Id. at 13. An acceptable quotation under the schedule criterion meets the installation dates. Id. at 19. The RFQ advised vendors that “[t]he Government will use any available information to evaluate past performance,” without providing additional guidance on the evaluation.[1] See RFQ at 19. The RFQ did not require vendors to provide past performance references. See id. at 13-18. To be technically acceptable, a quotation had to be evaluated as acceptable under all three evaluation criteria. See id. at 19. At issue in this protest is the agency’s evaluation of quotations under the technical evaluation criterion. Award would be made based on the vendor’s total quoted price, which included supplies, services, shipping, storage, and optional items. Id. The RFQ advised vendors that “[q]uoted items from GSA Contractors shall be on [the vendor’s] GSA Schedule contract and be at or below GSA pricing, unless specified as open market items.” Id. The FIDs listed the specifications and requirements for all solicited items. See generally, AR, Tab 4(b), RFQ amend. 1, attach. 2, FID. Of relevance here, the RFQ required a metal bunkbed that “[s]hall accommodate [a] 38”W x 80”L mattress. Id. at 11. The FID also required that all products “be manufactured in a [Trade Agreements Act (TAA)] compliant country, where applicable.” Id. at 3. The agency received quotations from the awardee, the protester, and a third vendor. COS at 2. After five rounds of technical review, the agency evaluated the three quotations as technically acceptable. See id. at 2-3. The agency requested best and final offers “in an effort to give the vendors an opportunity to discount their prices to make their quotes more competitive against the entire pool of competition.” Id. at 3. The Army notes that this request was required by FAR section 8.405-4, which mandates that the government seek price reductions on orders over the simplified acquisition threshold. Id. Inovo and the third vendor reduced their prices, while CAM increased its price.