BNUMBER: B-265863
DATE: December 21, 1995
TITLE: Knoll North America, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Knoll North America, Inc.
File: B-265863
Date: December 21, 1995
Charles F. Gaul for the protester.
Karen Davis Huber, Esq., Federal Aviation Administration, for the
agency.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that agency erred in calculating protester's weighted price
for systems furniture is denied where agency's application of
technical score for product line offered to accessory item prices was
a reasonable interpretation of the evaluation formula set out in the
solicitation and, even assuming that the protester's contrary
interpretation also was reasonable, the record shows that the
protester was not prejudiced by the ambiguity.
DECISION
Knoll North America, Inc. protests the award of a purchase order for
office furniture to Herman Miller Furniture, Inc. under request for
quotations (RFQ) No. DTFA11-95-Q-00473, issued by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Knoll contends that the agency erred in
calculating its weighted price, which, if properly calculated, was
lower than Herman Miller's.
We deny the protest.
The RFQ, which was issued pursuant to the procedures established under
General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule 71, Part
II, Section E, sought quotations for 138 workstations, plus design and
installation services, to outfit the FAA's Technical Operations Center
at Denver International Airport. The RFQ provided for award to the
vendor whose total weighted price, as arrived at through application
of the following formula, was lowest:
Total Discounted Price x Technical Score[1] = Weight Factor
Weighted Factor + Total Discounted Price = Initial Weighted Price
for Supplies
Design Cost + Installation Cost x Designer/Installer Score =
Weight Factor for Design/Installation
Weight Factor for Design/Install + Design Cost + Installation
Cost = Initial Weighted Price for Services
Initial Weighted Price for Supplies + Initial Weighted Price for
Services = TOTAL WEIGHTED PRICE
Offerors were instructed to designate their GSA contract numbers and
the percentage discount off list pricing that they were offering.
Six quotations were received by the June 30, 1995, closing date. All
vendors, with the exception of Knoll, designated one GSA contract
number. Knoll designated two GSA contract numbers--GS 00F 5100A (its
"Equity" line) and GS 00F 9000A (its "Morrison" line)--and two
discount rates, one applicable to each contract.[2] All of the items
that Knoll offered from contract 9000A were accessory items (i.e.,
paper trays, slanted sorters, telephone display shelves, pencil
drawers, and accessory bars) from its KnollExtra Orchestra Collection
of universal accessories; altogether, they accounted for less than 5
percent of Knoll's offered price for the workstation components.
Knoll explained during the course of this protest that the reason it
had offered the accessory items from a separate GSA contract was that
as a result of a "product pruning" decision, it had stopped offering
Equity paperwork management items commercially in January 1995. It
had then, on March 14, submitted paperwork to the GSA National
Furniture Center to delete the commercially discontinued Equity
paperwork management products from its Equity systems furniture
contract and to replace them with the Orchestra products that were
already on its Morrison furniture systems contract. GSA did not issue
the modification to the Equity contract until August 25, however--more
than a month after the closing date for receipt of revised quotations
under this RFQ.
The contracting officer conducted written discussions with all
offerors and requested revised quotations. While awaiting the
quoters' responses, she contacted the GSA/FSS Furniture Systems
Management Division to obtain the technical evaluation scores for the
product lines offered, including both of the Knoll lines. In
response, GSA furnished one score for each quoter, including Knoll,
and informed the contracting officer that only one technical score
could be used in evaluating each quotation. The score provided for
Knoll was its Equity line score. The contracting officer calculated
vendors' weighted prices for supplies using the technical scores; she
then added on their design and installation prices to determine their
total weighted prices. She determined, based on her calculations,
that Herman Miller's total weighted price of $543,044.46 was low;
Knoll was second low with a total weighted price of $543,252.02. On
July 24, the agency notified Herman Miller that it had been selected
for award and issued an order for the design portion of the work. On
August 23, upon completion of the design work, the agency issued a
second order for delivery and installation of the workstations.
On July 29, Knoll filed an agency-level protest, complaining that its
total weighted price had been incorrectly calculated and that it was
in fact lower than Herman Miller's. Specifically, Knoll objected to
the agency's application of its Equity line technical score to the
items that it had offered from its Morrison line contract. The
protester argued that rather than applying the technical score for its
Equity product line to the items offered from its Morrison line
contract, the agency should have applied the technical score
applicable to the Morrison product line, which was lower (i.e., more
favorable) than the Equity line score. Knoll presented calculations
demonstrating that had its weighted price been calculated using its
Morrison line score for the items that it offered from that contract,
its total weighted price would have been more than $600 lower than
Herman Miller's weighted price.
The contracting officer denied Knoll's agency-level protest on August
17, noting that GSA had instructed her that accessory and open market
items were to be evaluated using the score of the product line
offered, which in Knoll's case was the Equity line. Knoll then
protested to our Office.
Knoll argues that the only reasonable interpretation of the award
provision (which does not clearly explain what procedures will be
followed in determining the applicable weight factor where items not
part of the primary product line are offered) is that if items are
offered from a separate GSA contract, then the technical score
applicable to the product line covered by the second contract should
be used to calculate the weight factor to be added to the discounted
price. We disagree.
When a dispute exists as to the actual meaning of a solicitation
provision, our Office will resolve the matter by reading the
solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all its
provisions. Plum Run, B-256869, July 21, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 38. Here,
we think that GSA's interpretation--i.e., that where accessory items
are offered from a different FSS contract, the technical score
applicable to the primary product line offered will be used to
determine the applicable weight factor--is reasonable.
While it did not expressly prohibit offering components from more than
one product line, the RFQ, which provided for application of the
product line technical score to each quoter's "Total Discounted
Price," clearly contemplated that only one computation would be
performed, which necessarily implies that only one product line score
will be used. When the agency received Knoll's quote offering
components from two different product lines, it sought GSA's guidance
on the proper way to evaluate the offer. We see no basis to conclude
that GSA's advice--to apply the technical score assigned to the
product line from which the major components were offered--was
unreasonable; on the contrary, such an approach is consistent with the
purpose of using technical scores in this type of procurement--to take
into account in the evaluation the quality of the product line as a
whole.[3]
Further, the accessory items, although offered from Knoll's Morrison
line contract, are not part of its Morrison product line; rather, they
are part of its "KnollExtra Collection of Universal Accessories,"
which means, according to Knoll's contract brochure, that they can be
used with any Knoll Group or competitor office system. Thus, it does
not appear that the Morrison line technical score was any more
accurate a reflection of their quality than the Equity line score.
Indeed, it is apparent from the record that had GSA acted on Knoll's
request to add the Orchestra line universal accessories to its Equity
contract 2 months earlier, these items would have been on the Equity
line contract.
In sum, we think that GSA's approach is reasonable and consistent with
both the language of the evaluation formula in the RFQ and with the
purpose of the technical scores, to reflect in the evaluation an
assessment of the overall quality of the product line offered.
Knoll argues that its interpretation of the solicitation--to require
application of the technical score corresponding to the product line
from which the accessories are offered--is reasonable. We think that
Knoll's interpretation at a minimum is inconsistent with the reference
in the evaluation formula to "Total Discounted Price" as the factor
against which the technical score was to be applied; while the RFQ did
not prohibit offering components from different product lines, there
is no indication in the plain language of the evaluation formula that
the agency contemplated calculating the weighted price on an
item-by-item basis.
Even assuming that Knoll's interpretation is reasonable, however, the
solicitation at most is ambiguous given our conclusion that GSA's
interpretation also is reasonable. Id. We will not sustain a
post-award protest against an ambiguous solicitation provision where
there is no evidence that any offeror was prejudiced by the ambiguity.
Id.; Rexon Tech. Corp.; Bulova Technologies, Inc., B-243446.2;
B-243446.3, Sept. 20, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 262, recon. den., B-243446.4;
B-243446.5, Feb. 5, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 147. Here, the record contains
no such evidence. The protester has not argued that it would have
altered its quotation in any way had it realized that the agency would
apply its Equity line technical score to items offered from its
Morrison line contract. In other words, it has not argued that it
relied, to its prejudice, on its interpretation of the award provision
as providing for application of both technical scores. Accordingly,
we see no basis to conclude that Knoll was prejudiced by any ambiguity
in the evaluation formula.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. A major feature of FSS 71 is a technical evaluation score developed
and assigned to each schedule contract holder, which can be used by
agencies to weight the pricing of each vendor offering on a project so
as to ensure that vendor selection is a combination of low price and
technical merit. A product line's technical score is determined by
assigning it a score between 0 and 4 (with 0 being the most desirable
and 4 the least) under each of the following criteria: conformity of
demonstration sample to requirement; ease of assembly; workmanship;
operation; visual appearance; ease of maintenance; and product design.
Offerors are advised of the technical scores assigned to their own
product lines, but not of other offerors' scores.
2. The discount rate applicable to contract number 5100A was 76
percent off list price; the discount applicable to 9000A was 67
percent.
3. As noted above, GSA arrives at the product line technical scores
based upon the following factors: conformity of demonstration samples
to the requirement; ease of assembly; workmanship; operation; visual
appearance; ease of maintenance; and product design.