TITLE:  Leisure-Lift, Inc., B-291878.3; B-292448.2, September 25, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-291878.3; B-292448.2
DATE:  September 25, 2003
**********************************************************************
Leisure-Lift, Inc., B-291878.3; B-292448.2, September 25, 2003

   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:   Leisure-Lift, Inc.
    
File:            B-291878.3; B-292448.2
    
Date:              September 25, 2003
    
Philip J. Davis, Esq., Phillip H. Harrington, Esq., William Leith, Esq.,
and Timothy W. Staley, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for the protester.
Robert H. Koehler, Esq., Patton Boggs, for Electric Mobility Corp., and
Timothy S. Kerr, Esq., Elliot Reihner Siedzikowski & Egan, for Golden
Technologies, the intervenors.
Maura C. Brown, Esq., and Philip S. Kaufman, Esq., Department  of Veterans
Affairs, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Agency*s determination that the awardee offered a domestic end product
compliant with the Buy American Act was reasonable, where in response to
allegations made prior to award concerning the compliance of the awardee*s
product, the agency reasonably investigated the compliance of awardee*s
product with the Buy American Act, including visiting the awardee*s
facility to observe the manufacturing process and receiving detailed
information from the awardee regarding the cost and origin of the
components that comprise the offered product, and where the protester
provided no specifics that showed the end product or the majority of its
component costs were not manufactured in the United States.
    
2.  The agency*s pre-award receipt of an unsupported allegation that the
awardee sells an inferior product manufactured by another firm in Taiwan
does not impose an obligation on the contracting officer to conduct an
investigation whether the awardee will comply with the awardee*s
certification in its proposal that the end products offered in its
proposal are compliant with the Trade Agreements Act.
DECISION
    
Leisure-Lift, Inc. protests the awards of contracts to Golden Technologies
under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-NC-03-0007 (-0007) and Electric
Mobility Corp. (EMC) under RFP No. 797-NC-03-0008 (-0008), issued by the
Department of Veterans Affairs, for motorized scooters to be used by
individuals with mobility problems. The protester contends that the award
to Golden under RFP -0007 was improper because the Golden scooters are not
domestic end products for the purposes of the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C.
S: 10a-10d (2000). Leisure-Lift argues with regard to RFP -0008 that the
award to EMC was improper because the award was not in compliance with the
Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. S:S: 2501-2582 (2000), and that
the agency did not reasonably evaluate its proposal and product sample,
and failed to conduct meaningful discussions with it.
    

   We deny the protests.
    
The agency explains that the procurements here are *part of a broader
program underway at VA to standardize prosthetic items.*  Agency Report
(AR) (B-291878.3) at 1; (B-292448.2) at 1.  In this regard, VA has
established a Prosthetic Clinical Management Program (PCMP), whose goals
*include enhancing and standardizing the quality of care, enhancing the
appropriate use of Prosthetics, improving access to Prosthetics, and
reducing the acquisition cost of Prosthetics.*  AR (B-291878.3) at 2;
(B-292448.2) at 2.  The specifications and evaluation factors for the
scooter procurements here were developed by a *scooter workgroup* within
the VA*s PCMP.  The solicitations were issued in order to *obtain user
uniformity and quality products at lower than current contract and
open-market prices* through the establishment of consolidated requirements
contracts for scooters purchased through the PCMP. 
AR (B-291878.3) at 2; (B-292448.2) at 2.
    
RFP -0007
    
RFP -0007, issued as a total set-aside for small businesses, provided for
the award of a requirements contract, for a base period of 1 year with
four 1-year options.  The RFP stated that award would be made to the
offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the
government, and listed the following evaluation factors:  technical,
price, and quality/past performance.  The RFP informed offerors that the
technical factor was slightly more important than price, and that the
quality/past performance factor was significantly less important than
price.  The RFP required offerors to submit product samples (i.e.,
scooters) for evaluation, in addition to technical and business
proposals.  The solicitation also incorporated by reference Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S: 52.225-1, which implements the Buy
American Act, and required offerors to certify that the end product
offered was a domestic end product as that term is defined in the Buy
American Act, or to identify its product as a foreign end product.[2]
The agency received proposals and product samples from five offerors,
including Golden and Leisure-Lift.  Golden*s proposal/product sample was
evaluated as
*very good* under the technical factor and *exceptional* under the
quality/past performance factor, at an evaluated annual price of
$2,531,130.[3]  AR (B-292448.2), Tab 10, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at
2-3.  Leisure-Lift submitted proposals for two models of its scooters,
with the most competitive of the proposals/product samples being evaluated
as *good* under the technical factor and *highly acceptable* under the
quality/past performance factor, at an annual evaluated price of
$3,388,406.  Id.  The agency awarded the contract to Golden on June 5,
2003, and this protest followed.
    
The protester argues that Golden*s proposed scooter cannot be considered a
*domestic end product* under the Buy American Act, and that accordingly
Golden*s proposal should have been rejected by the agency.
    
As implemented in the FAR, the Buy American Act defines *domestic end
product* as an *end product manufactured in the United States if the cost
of its . . . components which are mined, produced or manufactured in the
United States exceeds 50 percent (50%) of the cost of all its
components.*  FAR S: 25.101.  Components are defined as *those articles,
materials, and supplies incorporated directly into the end products.* 
Id.  Thus, to qualify as domestic, an end product must meet a two-pronged
test:  (1) it must be manufactured in the United States; and (2) the cost
of its components which are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United
States must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its components;
components must also be manufactured in the United States to qualify as
domestic components.  Computer Hut Int*l, Inc., B‑249421 et al.,
Nov. 23, 1992, 92-2 CPD P: 364 at 4.
    
As a general rule, an agency should go beyond a firm*s self-certification
for Buy American Act purposes and should not rely upon the validity of
that certification where the agency has reason to believe, prior to award,
that a foreign end product will be furnished.  On the other hand, where a
contracting officer has no information prior to award that would lead to
the conclusion that the product to be furnished is a foreign end product,
the contracting officer may properly rely upon an offeror*s
self‑certification without further investigation.  Following award,
whether an offeror does in fact furnish a foreign end product in violation
of its certification is a matter of contract administration.  Cryptek,
Inc., B-241354, Feb. 4, 1991, 91-1 CPD P: 111 at 4.  Where an agency is
required to investigate further, we will review the evaluation and
resulting determination as to whether the item offered is a domestic end
product to ensure that they were reasonable.  General Kinetics, Inc.,
Cryptek Div., B‑242052.2, May 7, 1991, 91-1 CPD P: 445 at 7.
    
Here, the record reflects that, prior to the issuance of the solicitation,
Leisure-Lift contacted the VA contracting officer and *alleged that Golden
Technologies* scooters were made in Taiwan,* and that the contracting
officer had been provided with *pictures of Golden Technologies* boxes,
which clearly were labeled *Made in Taiwan.**  AR (B-292448.2) at 11.
    
The contracting officer responded to Leisure-Lift*s allegation by first
determining that Golden*s scooters were on the Federal Supply Schedule
(FSS), and requesting that the contracting officer that administered
Golden*s FSS contract investigate Leisure-Lift*s allegation.  Id.  The FSS
contracting officer and an attorney with the VA subsequently had *several
conversations* with Golden concerning the allegation, and were informed
that *the scooter shell was made in Taiwan* and that Golden was *merely
reusing these boxes to ship the completed scooter.*  Id.  As a result of
these conversations, Golden sent a letter to the FSS contracting officer
detailing the various components that comprise the completed scooter, and
providing that each of the components, with the exception of the scooter
shell, were made in the United States.  AR (B-292448.2) at 11; Tab 20,
Golden Letter (Nov. 27, 2002).  The record reflects that Golden next
contacted an attorney with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department
of Homeland Security (Customs), and in response to Golden*s description of
its manufacturing process, Golden was informally informed that based on
the facts presented *the completed scooter would be considered a product
of the U.S.*  AR (B-292448.2) at 11; Tab 19, E-Mail from Customs Attorney
(Dec. 3, 2002).  The Customs attorney then informed the VA contracting
officer of his opinion that, based upon the facts presented by Golden, its
scooter *would be considered a U.S. product under our country of origin
criteria.*  AR (B‑292448.2), Tab 18, E-mail from Customs Attorney
(Dec. 23, 2002).
    
Shortly before award, another offeror alleged that Golden*s scooter was of
foreign manufacture, and provided the VA contracting officer with the name
of a Customs special agent to contact.  AR (B-292448.2) at 14.  A
representative of the VA*s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the
Customs special agent subsequently visited Golden*s facility to *observe
the manufacturing process.*  AR (B-292448.2) at 14.  The VA OIG and
Customs representatives concluded that the Golden*s scooters *were to be
considered made in America,* and detailed their reasons for this
conclusion.  AR (B-292448.2) at 14; Tab 15, VA OIG Representative*s E-mail
(June 5, 2003). 
    
Also, in response to Leisure-Lift*s protest, the VA contracting officer
requested and received from Golden a detailed matrix identifying each
component of the scooter, its country of origin, cost, and percentage of
that cost in relation to the completed scooter*s cost.  This matrix, in
sum, provided that only the scooter shell, or *base unit,* whose cost
comprised 47.7 percent of the scooter*s total cost, was made in Taiwan,
with the rest of the components being of United States origin.
AR (B-292448.2), Tab 13, Cost Matrix.  This matrix was accompanied by a
number of spreadsheets further breaking down each component of the scooter
into its individual items, and identifying the cost of each of these
items.  AR (B-292448.2), Tab 13, Spreadsheets.
    
Leisure-Lift contends that the information furnished by Golden was not
sufficiently detailed for the agency to reasonably conclude that Golden*s
scooter was a domestic end product for Buy American Act purposes.  In this
regard, the protester points out that *[w]hile Golden is apparently
purchasing the remaining purported domestic components from companies with
addresses in the United States, there is not a single certification for
any of the components that the item was actually manufactured in the
United States.*  Protester*s Comments (B-292448.2) at 5. 
    
In our view, the agency*s evaluation and resulting determination that
Golden*s scooter was a domestic end product were reasonable.  As indicated
above, Leisure‑Lift*s initial allegation was that Golden*s scooter
was manufactured in Taiwan, as evidenced by the markings on the Golden
boxes.  The record reflects that before making award the agency
investigated the claim by discussing the matter with Golden, providing for
an on-site visit of Golden*s manufacturing facility by Customs and VA OIG
officials, and receiving informal opinions from Customs* officials that
Golden*s scooter was domestically manufactured.  After award, the VA
contracting officer obtained information from Golden providing the country
of origin of each of the component parts of its scooter, which indicated
the majority of the component costs were for components manufactured in
the United States. 
    
The only specific challenge Leisure-Lift makes with regard to whether the
components of Golden*s scooter are domestic is its assertion that one of
the components claimed by Golden as manufactured in the United States--the
scooter*s transaxle--is actually of foreign manufacture.  In support of
this contention, the protester has provided a statement from the president
of Leisure-Lift, wherein he asserts that he had previously contacted the
same transaxle supplier that Golden is currently using and was informed
that the transaxle was made in the Peoples Republic of China and included
two parts that were made in the United States.  Protester*s Comments
(B-292448.2), attach. A, Declaration of the President of Leisure-Lift.  In
response, Golden has provided a letter from its transaxle supplier stating
that while it does provide a transaxle manufactured in China for use in
another of Golden*s scooters, the transaxle provided for use in the
scooter offered by Golden to the VA here is *manufactured and assembled*
in Pennsylvania.  Intervenor*s Supplemental Comments, Attach. 1, Letter
from Transaxle Supplier/manufacturer (Aug. 8, 2003).  In the absence of
countervailing evidence, we think that the agency reasonably relied upon
this evidence in determining that the transaxle was domestically
manufactured.
    
In sum, under the circumstances here, which include, among other things,
Golden*s completion of the Buy American Act certificate in its proposal,
the pre‑award investigation of Golden and its manufacturing process
by the VA OIG and Customs, the requested post‑award submissions by
Golden concerning its component costs (that were consistent with the
pre-award information), and the lack of specifics (with the exception of
its transaxle argument) from Leisure‑Lift in support of its
allegation that the majority of the components comprising Golden*s scooter
are of foreign manufacture, we find the agency had adequate information
to, and did, reasonably determine that Golden*s scooter was a domestic end
product as relevant here.[4]  See Cryptek, supra, at 4 (awardee*s
confirmation by telephone that its Buy American Act certificate was
correct, without the submission of any additional information, was
adequate given the level of detail provided by the protester prior to the
award of the contract regarding its allegation that the awardee*s product
was not Buy American Act compliant).
    
RFP -0008
    
RFP -0008, issued as an unrestricted procurement, provided for the award
of a requirements contract, for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year
options, for three different *award group[s]* of scooters.  The first
award group was for the *smallest scooter,* the second award group was for
a full-sized three-wheeled scooter, and the third award group was for a
full-sized four-wheeled scooter.  Leisure-Lift*s protest here only
concerns the award under the third group.
    
The RFP stated that award would *be made by [a]ward [g]roup* to the
offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the
government, and listed the following evaluation factors:  technical,
price, quality/past performance, and small disadvantaged business (SDB)
participation.  RFP -0008 at 32; amend. 1, at 3.  The RFP informed
offerors that the technical factor was slightly more important than price,
and that the quality/past performance and SDB participation factors, when
combined, were significantly less important than price. 
    
The RFP required offerors to submit product samples (i.e., scooters) for
evaluation, in addition to a technical and business proposal.  RFP -0008
at 27.  The RFP also advised offerors that the agency intended *to
evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors,*
and that *the offeror*s initial offer should contain the offeror*s best
terms from a price and technical standpoint.*  RFP -0008 at 23. 
The RFP contained detailed specifications for the full-sized four-wheeled
scooters that comprised the third award group, including a number of
*options* for this scooter group--for example, options for *Flip up arm
rest[s],* *Seat back angle adjustment,* and *Power Seat Elevation.*  RFP
-0008, amend. 1, at 2.  The RFP also included a pricing schedule to be
completed by offerors, which set forth the item to be acquired (including
option items), estimated quantity, unit, unit price, and total amount. 
The pricing schedule for the full-sized four-wheeled scooters provided for
an estimated quantity of 910 scooters under item No. 3a, 819 pairs of flip
up arms rests under item No. 3d, and 91 *Power seat elevation* under item
No. 2g.  RFP ‑0008, amend. 1, at 4.  The solicitation provided the
following explanation with regard to pricing and completion of the
schedule:
    
All prices quoted shall be *on scooter* prices and shall be quoted taking
into consideration that the items will be on the scooter instead of the
specified items.  For example, if there is an additional cost for flip up
arm rests, the cost of the standard arm rest should be deducted from the
cost of the flip up arm rest. . . . To be considered for award, all items
within an Award Group must be offered.  Since award will be made by Award
Group, the minimum offer for the solicitation is one Award Group.
RFP -0008, amend. 1, at 3.
    
Finally, the solicitation included FAR S:S: 52.212-4 and 52.225-5, which
implement the Trade Agreements Act 19 U.S.C. S: 2511 (2000) and the North
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1993, 19 U.S.C. S:
3301 note.[5]  In this regard, offerors were required to certify that the
end product offered was a domestic end product or to identify the product
as a foreign end product.  The RFP provided that **End Product* means
those articles, materials, and supplies to be acquired under the contract
for public use,* and that a **U.S.-made end product* means an article that
is mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States or that is
substantially transformed in the United States into a new and different
article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of
the article or articles from which it was transformed.*  RFP -0008 at 13.
    
The agency received eight proposals and product samples from five
offerors, including EMC and Leisure-Lift, for the third award group.[6] 
After the proposals and product samples were evaluated, both offerors were
requested to submit final revised prices.  EMC*s proposal/product sample
was evaluated as *good* under the technical factor and *highly acceptable*
under the quality/past performance factor, at an evaluated annual price of
$1,332,240.  AR (B‑291878.3), Tab 13, Price Negotiation Memorandum,
at 7-8.  Leisure-Lift*s most competitive proposal/product sample was
evaluated as *acceptable* under the technical factor and *highly
acceptable* under quality/past performance factor, at a proposed price of
$1,447,552.[7]  Id.  The agency awarded the contract for the third award
group to EMC on June 5.  This protest followed.
    
Leisure-Lift first argues that EMC*s proposal under RFP -0008 should have
been rejected by the agency because it does not comply with the Trade
Agreements Act.  In this regard, by letter dated May 23, 2003 (prior to
contract award), Leisure-Lift provided the agency with a copy of a
*Warning Letter* from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to a Taiwanese
manufacturer of scooters for various problems associated with the
scooters.  AR (B-291878.3), Tab 21, Leisure-Lift Letter to VA (May 23,
2003).  Leisure-Lift asserted that the FDA letter was *relevan[t] to this
acquisition because scooters sold by [EMC] are manufactured* by the
Taiwanese firm cited by the FDA, and concluded that the *documented
problems raise serious doubts about the quality and potential safety of
[EMC] scooters.*  Id. at 1-2.
    
As with the Buy America Act, when a bidder or offeror represents that it
will furnish end products of designated or qualifying countries (including
domestic end products) in accordance with the Trade Agreements Act, it is
obligated under the contract to comply with that representation.  If prior
to award an agency has reason to believe that a firm will not provide
compliant products, the agency should go beyond a firm*s representation of
compliance with the Trade Agreements Act; however, where the contracting
officer has no information prior to award which would lead to such a
conclusion, the contracting officer may properly rely upon an offeror*s
representation without further investigation.  E.D.I., Inc., B-251750,
B‑252128, May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD P: 364 at 5.
    
Here, the contracting officer notes that Leisure-Lift*s letter did not
include any documentation in support of its assertion that EMC sold
scooters manufactured by the Taiwanese firm, and that the contracting
officer relied on EMC*s certification in its proposal that the scooter
offered met the requirements of the Trade Agreements Act.  Contracting
Officer*s Statement (B-291878.3) at 2. 
    
Based on our review, we find the contracting officer*s actions here to be
reasonable.  First, the problems noted by Leisure-Lift in its letter
concerned, by the letter*s terms, scooters manufactured by a firm other
than EMC, and the allegation that EMC sold this firm*s scooters was not
supported.  Additionally, Leisure-Lift never mentioned any buy-national
laws, regulations, or procedures, such as the Trade Agreements Act, in its
letter to the agency; rather, the letter asserted that the scooters of the
Taiwanese manufacturer had quality and safety issues that should impact
the agency*s evaluation of EMC*s proposal and determination as to EMC*s
responsibility.  AR (B-291878.3), Tab 21, Leisure-Lift letter (May 23,
2003).  Without more, Leisure‑Lift*s unsupported allegations did not
impose an obligation on the contracting officer to conduct a detailed
investigation behind the Trade Agreements Act certification provided by
EMC in its proposal.[8]  See Cryptek, Inc., supra, at 4.
    
Leisure-Lift also protests that the power seat actuator (one of the parts
that comprises the power seat elevation option) used in EMC*s scooter is
made in the China, and contends that because of this, the acquisition of
EMC*s scooter is barred by the Trade Agreements Act, since China is not a
designated country pursuant to that Act.  See FAR S: 25.401. 
Specifically, the protester argues that the Trade Agreements Act provision
set forth in the RFP, although applicable only to *end products,* must be
considered applicable to each of the items set forth in the RFP as
options, such as power seat elevation, as well as the scooter itself.  The
protester argues that this is so because the option items for each award
group of scooter were set forth as separate line items in the RFP, and
were identified elsewhere in the solicitation as *items.*  The protester
argues further that the power seat actuator is not *substantially
transformed* by the process through which it is incorporated into the seat
assembly to provide the scooter with power seat elevation.  Protester*s
Supplemental Comments (B-291878.3) at 7-13.
    
The agency responds that Leisure-Lift*s reading of the solicitation is
unreasonable, as it is clear from the RFP, when read as a whole, that the
end-item being procured is the scooter itself, rather than power seat
elevation or any of the other options set forth in the RFP.  The agency
adds that even if power seat elevation could be considered an end item
under the solicitation, the power seat actuator is *substantially
transformed* by EMC into a power seat assembly, such that it should be
considered a *U.S.-made* end product under the terms of the Trade
Agreements Act.
    
We need not decide the merits of Leisure-Lift*s protest regarding the
power seat actuator.  As explained above, the agency could reasonably rely
on EMC*s certification in its proposal that its offered scooters will meet
the requirements of the Trade Agreements Act, particularly since
Leisure-Lift*s allegations concerning the power seat actuator were only
raised after award was made.  Thus, we agree with the agency that whether
EMC does in fact comply with its Trade Agreements Act certification is now
a matter of contract administration that is not for our review.  E.D.I.,
Inc., supra, at 4.
    
Leisure-Lift also protests that the agency*s evaluation of proposals was
unreasonable and evidences unequal treatment, and that the agency failed
to conduct meaningful discussions with Leisure-Lift.  Specifically, the
protester contends that its and EMC*s proposals/product samples received
ratings of *acceptable* and *good,* respectively, under the technical
factor, even though the evaluators* comments as to the results of the
product sample evaluation were very similar and, with regard to
Leisure-Lift*s scooter, evidenced that the evaluators may not have
reasonably evaluated and tested the product sample.  The protester adds
that to the extent that the actual difference in its and EMC*s
proposals/product samples was, as claimed by the agency,
Leisure‑Lift*s American National Standards Institute,
Inc./Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North
America (ANSI/RESNA) test results, the agency*s concerns regarding this
aspect of Leisure‑Lift*s proposal, together with the other evaluated
*significant weaknesses* that were found in its proposal under the
technical factor, should have been raised by the agency during
discussions. 
    
The agency argues that regardless of the merits of Leisure-Lift*s
arguments here, there is no reasonable possibility that Leisure-Lift was
prejudiced by the agency*s allegedly unreasonable and unequal evaluation,
and its failure to hold meaningful discussions.  Agency*s Supplemental
Report (B-291878.3) at 6.  The agency explains that if the allegedly
unreasonable evaluation, unequal treatment, and lack of meaningful
discussions were addressed by increasing Leisure-Lift*s rating under the
technical factor to *good,* the agency*s source selection decision would
have been the same, given EMC*s rating of *good* under the technical
factor, the offerors* identical ratings of *highly acceptable* under the
quality/past performance factor, and EMC*s nine-percent lower price. 
    
Competitive prejudice is necessary before we will sustain a protest; where
the record does not demonstrate that the protester would have a reasonable
chance of receiving award but for the agency*s actions, we will not
sustain a protest, even if deficiencies, such as an unequal evaluation of
proposals or lack of meaningful discussions, is found.  Metropolitan
Interpreters & Translators, B-285394.2 et al., Dec. 1, 2001, 2000 CPD P:
97 at 9. 
The record reflects that, in accordance with the terms of the
solicitation, the nine‑percent price advantage associated with EMC*s
proposal was a significant aspect of the agency*s source selection.  AR
(B-291878.3); Tab 13, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 7-8.  Given this,
and the fact that, in response to the agency*s detailed assertion of lack
of prejudice, the protester does not assert nor point to anything in the
record (nor can we find anything based on our review) that indicates or
otherwise provides that had the agency reasonably evaluated
Leisure‑Lift*s proposal and/or engaged in meaningful discussions,
its proposal/product sample would have received a rating higher than
*good* under the technical factor (or the same as EMC*s proposal*s
rating), we fail to see any reasonable possibility that the protester was
prejudiced by the agency*s actions here.[9]
    
The protests are denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1] Leisure-Lift raised and later withdrew various other protest bases
under both RFPs.
[2] For small business set-asides, such as this, FAR S: 19.102(f)(1)
requires that only domestically produced products can be furnished under
small business set-asides.  TRS Research, B-282342, Nov. 4, 1999, 99-2 CPD
P: 85 at 3; Kaysam Worldwide, Inc., B-247743, June 8, 1992, 92-1 CPD P:
500 at 2.
[3] The proposals/products samples were evaluated under the technical
factor as *superior,* *very good,* *good,* *acceptable,* *fair,* or
*poor.*  The proposals were evaluated under the quality/past performance
factor as *exceptional,* *highly acceptable,* *neutral,* *acceptable,*
*minimally acceptable,* or *unacceptable.*  This same scheme was used in
evaluating proposals under RFP -0008.
[4] The protester also complained that Golden erroneously included certain
labor costs in its calculation of the domestic component costs associated
with its scooter that improperly inflated the percentage of domestic
component costs comprising Golden*s scooter.  Protester*s Comments
(B-292448.2) at 3-5.  We need not decide whether these labor costs were
properly calculated by Golden because, as conceded by the protester, even
if the contested labor costs are deducted from Golden*s calculation of
domestic component costs, the domestic component costs still exceed 50
percent of the scooter*s total component cost.  Id. at 5.
[5] The Trade Agreements Act authorizes the President to waive all
buy-national laws, regulations, or procedures for the acquisition of
eligible *end products* from any country designated as a reciprocating,
signatory nation to a recognized agreement or at least a developing
country.  In order to encourage trade agreements with additional countries
for reciprocal procurement opportunities, the Trade Agreements Act also
requires the President to prohibit the procurement of eligible end
products from foreign countries not designated pursuant to the Act.  19
U.S.C. S: 2511; Hung Myung (USA) Ltd.; Containertechnik Hamburg GmbH &
Co., B‑244686 et al., Nov. 7, 1991 91-2 CPD P: 434 at 2-3.
[6] Two of the offerors submitted multiple proposals, each offering a
different model of scooter, such that a total of eight different models of
scooters were proposed.  Five of the scooters proposed were rejected by
the agency for failing to meet the specifications set forth in the
solicitation, leaving two scooters proposed by Leisure‑Lift and one
by EMC in the competition.
[7] The proposals submitted by Leisure-Lift and EMC did not propose any
SDB participation, and were thus each rated *[n]one* under the SDB
utilization factor.
[8] We note that in any event, EMC has provided a detailed response to the
protester*s assertions, explaining that the scooter offered in its
proposal here is not manufactured by the Taiwanese firm cited by the FTC,
but is manufactured in the United States by EMC.  AR (B-291878.3), Tab 20,
EMC Letter (June 26, 2003).
[9] Leisure-Lift*s assertion of prejudice here is premised in part upon
its allegation, which we deny above, that EMC*s proposal violated the
Trade Agreements Act, and that as a result, EMC was able to offer a lower
price.