3DCAD Printer, Inc. (N6426722Q1148)

B-421144,B-421144.2 Dec 22, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights 3DCAD Printer, Inc., doing business as 3D Printer Technology, of Marietta, Georgia, protests the issuance of a purchase order to DH Technologies, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, both small businesses, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N6426722Q1148. The Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), issued the RFQ for the renewal of commercial maintenance agreements for DELL EMC hardware appliances for the NSWC Corona Division Performance Assessment Department in Corona, California. 3DCAD argues that its quotation was improperly rejected as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: 3DCAD Printer, Inc., d/b/a 3D Printer Technology File: B-421144; B-421144.2 Date: December 22, 2022 Ron Robinson for the protester. Corinne Foley Peterson, Esq., and James S. Yu, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal as unacceptable is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION 3DCAD Printer, Inc., doing business as 3D Printer Technology, of Marietta, Georgia, protests the issuance of a purchase order to DH Technologies, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, both small businesses, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N6426722Q1148. The Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), issued the RFQ for the renewal of commercial maintenance agreements for DELL EMC hardware appliances[1] for the NSWC Corona Division Performance Assessment Department in Corona, California. 3DCAD argues that its quotation was improperly rejected as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on August 30, 2022, sought fixed-price quotations to provide maintenance renewals under a brand-name-only specification. The Navy explains that the procurement seeks hardware support and software support, which would include hardware replacement if a unit were to fail, and software maintenance through updating software licenses and registrations as well as applying patches and updates. Supp. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. The RFQ instructions directed vendors to submit specific information. First, quotations were to include a “delivery date/lead time,” “pricing for all CLIN(S) [contract line item numbers],” and “[i]nformation on the items/products being quoted ([p]art [n]umbers, [stock keeping unit numbers], etc., if applicable/available).” Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 71 (§ L).[2] Second, under the heading of “Gray Market Items,” the RFQ specified that: Offeror shall be an OEM [original equipment manufacturer], authorized dealer, authorized distributor or authorized reseller for the proposed supplies, equipment and/or services contracts for maintenance of equipment (i.e. replacement parts), verified by an authorization letter or other documents from the OEM, such that the OEM’s warranty and service are provided and maintained by the OEM. Id. Quotations were to include a statement of the firm’s “information/capabilities that demonstrate their ability to perform the task(s) identified” in the accompanying statement of work. Id. The RFQ also directed vendors to provide “Detailed Salient Characteristics in their offer.” Id. at 19 (§ C). In that regard, the RFQ included a list of detailed salient characteristics for each of 18 CLINs, which consisted of quantities, manufacturer part numbers, and dense coded descriptions.[3] The order was to be issued to the firm that submitted the lowest-priced technically acceptable quotation, and eligibility for award required that the quotation “fully compl[y] with the terms and conditions of the Solicitation” and that the price be fair and reasonable. RFQ at 74 (§ M). The Navy received multiple quotations, including one from 3DCAD that consisted of four attachments. The first was the RFQ, including the pricing pages from the RFQ, into which the firm wrote “ALL PRICING CLINS 1-18” followed by $122,850 on the line reserved for the price of CLIN 1; for each of the remaining 17 CLINs, instead of a price the quotation stated “SEE LINE ITEM-1.” The second was the text of the statement of work, verbatim, and the third document was a copy of amendment 2. The final document restated the firm’s price of $122,850 for all requirements and then identified the firm’s subcontractor, followed by a statement that “REFERENCE RECENT DELL / EMC STORAGE CONTRACT AWARD AS PROOF OF PERFORMANCE OF DELL STORAGE” after which there was a contract number and contact information for the contracting officer.