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.