TITLE:  Pride Mobility Products Corporation, B-292822.5, December 6, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-292822.5
DATE:  December 6, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Pride Mobility Products Corporation

   File:            B-292822.5

   Date:              December 6, 2004

   Stephen M. Azia, Esq., Eastwood & Azia, for the protester.

   Edward O. Patton, Esq., Mansour, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos, for Invacare
Corporation, an intervenor.

   Barbara J. Stuetzer, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

   David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest against agency determination that awardee's proposed wheelchair
was superior to protester's is denied where the determination was
reasonably based on a demonstration of the wheelchairs, as provided for by
the solicitation, which showed that the awardee's wheelchair was superior
in both indoor and outdoor environments.

   DECISION

   Pride Mobility Products Corporation protests the Department of Veterans
Affairs' award of a contract to Invacare Corporation under request for
proposals (RFP) No. RFP-797-NC-03-0028, for standard-size, power-based
wheelchairs.  Pride challenges the evaluation of proposals.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP provided for award of one or more fixed-price indefinite-delivery/
indefinite-quantity contracts--with a 1-year base period and four 1-year
options--for 4A items or award groups, including:  integral seat power
wheelchairs, light duty (group 1); integral seat power wheelchairs,
moderate duty (group 2); power-based wheelchairs, small size (group 3);
and power-based wheelchairs, standard size (group 4), the only group in
issue here.  The RFP included detailed specifications, setting forth both
dimensions and minimum performance capabilities, and required the
submission of sample wheelchairs for purposes of demonstrating conformance
to the specifications and the performance of the wheelchairs.

   Award was to be made to the responsible offeror(s) whose conforming
proposal(s) would be most advantageous to the government--that is, on a
"best value" basis-- considering four factors (in descending order of
importance):  (1) technical, including subfactors (in descending order of
importance) for performance, required options, American National Standards
Institute/Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of
North America (ANSI/RESNA) test results and overall suitability for VA
patients; (2)A price, (3)A quality/past performance, and (4)A small
disadvantaged business (SDB) participation.  The RFP provided for the
sample wheelchairs to be evaluated under the technical factors, but also
provided that the evaluation was not limited to these factors, and
reserved the right for VA "to inspect any aspect of the wheelchairs."  RFP
at 36.  Further, the RFP provided that "[s]ignificant weight will be given
to the overall performance of the power wheelchairs during" the
demonstration.  Id.  For purposes of determining the most advantageous
offer, the technical factor was slightly more important than price, and
quality/past performance and SDB participation combined were significantly
less important than price.

   Ten proposals from seven offerors were received by the closing time. 
After conducting discussions with the offerors and twice requesting
revised proposals, VA determined that the proposal submitted by Sunrise
Medical HHG, Inc. was most advantageous.  Pride and another firm
challenged the ensuing award to Sunrise in protests filed in our Office,
in response to which, VA proposed corrective action.  Thereafter, VA
issued amendment No. 6, requesting that offerors resubmit three sample
wheelchairs, including one programmed for indoor use and another
programmed for outdoor use.  Offerors were advised by the amendment, as
they had been in the original solicitation, that the wheelchairs would be
tested for "[p]erformance (including but not limited to the outdoor
factors of ease of use, maneuverability, inclines, obliques, comfort of
ride, grass, mud, sand, gravel, speed, and programmability; and indoor
factors of turning radius, braking distance, durability)."  Amend. 6.  No
price revisions were allowed.

   Based on the reevaluation, VA determined that Invacare's proposal of the
[DELETED] wheelchair was the most advantageous offer.  Specifically, while
Invacare's price ($[DELETED]) for the [DELETED] was [DELETED] higher than
Pride's ($[DELETED]) for its model [DELETED], and both offerors were rated
exceptional for past performance, Invacare's [DELETED] received a
technical rating of very good and its proposal received an acceptable SDB
utilization rating, while Pride's model [DELETED] received only an
acceptable technical rating and its proposal received a poor SDB
utilization rating.[1]  VA concluded that Invacare's wheelchair was "far
superior" to Pride's and that the technical superiority of Invacare's
proposal offset its higher price.  Upon learning of the resulting award to
Invacare, Pride filed this protest with our Office.

   Pride challenges VA's determination that Invacare's [DELETED] wheelchair
was technically superior to Pride's model [DELETED].  According to the
protester, the ratings for the indoor performance of its model [DELETED]
were comparable to those of Invacare's [DELETED].  As for the outdoor
performance evaluation, Pride asserts that the test was based on
circumstances that a user would not normally encounter, and that the
results therefore did not warrant paying Invacare's higher price.

   Where a proposal evaluation is challenged, our Office will not reevaluate
proposals; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the
agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation
criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  U.S. Facilities, Inc.,
B-293029, B-293029.2, Jan. 16, 2004, 2004 CPD P 17 at 6. 

   Here, VA rated Invacare's [DELETED] wheelchair very good and Pride's model
[DELETED] only acceptable for overall indoor and outdoor performance.  We
conclude that the evaluation in this regard was reasonable. 

   First, contrary to Pride's assertion that its model [DELETED] was
comparable to the [DELETED] in the indoor evaluation, the record shows
that this was not the case.  In this regard, with respect to the three
indoor performance categories, the  [DELETED] was evaluated as superior
for turning radius and maneuverability (very good versus good), while
Pride's modelA [DELETED] was evaluated as superior only for braking
distance (very good versus acceptable).  In particular, VA's evaluation
panel reported that it was impressed by the [DELETED]'s ease of use, range
of speed (with good adjustability at slow speeds), tight turning radius,
and ability to maneuver well through an obstacle course simulating narrow
hallways and bathrooms.  The panel concluded that these capabilities would
result in high veteran satisfaction and safety, with a low incidence of
bumping into walls and other obstacles.  In contrast, while Pride's model
[DELETED] was found to demonstrate a shorter, and thus superior, braking
distance, the panel determined that the model [DELETED] was less
advantageous in indoor environments because it was difficult to control
(in part because of the wide positioning of the rear casters), difficult
to back up, and was a "little jerky stopping and starting."  Technical
Evaluation, Pride [DELETED] Wheelchair, at 2.  According to the panel, the
design of the model [DELETED] did not encourage an intuitive sense of the
posterior boundaries of the chair, with the likely result that there would
be a higher than normal incidence of damage to veterans' homes, and less
than desired veteran safety and satisfaction.  The panel concluded that
while the [DELETED] was "an easy to control indoor power chair," the model
[DELETED] was a "weak performer" indoors. 

   Technical Evaluation, [DELETED] Wheelchair, at 7; Technical Evaluation,
Pride [DELETED] Wheelchair, at 6.  The protester has provided no basis for
questioning the agency's conclusion that Invacare's [DELETED] was superior
overall in indoor performance. [2]

   As for the eight outdoor performance categories, while Pride's model
[DELETED] was evaluated as superior under none of the categories, the
[DELETED] was evaluated as demonstrating superior performance under five
of these categories (inclines/obliques, grass, gravel incline, speed and
durability), including two under which it was rated significantly higher
than Pride's model [DELETED] (very good versus fair for inclines/obliques,
and very good versus acceptable for gravel incline).  In particular, the
evaluation panel found that the [DELETED] was a powerful wheelchair adept
at traversing grassy environments, slopes and gravel inclines, such that
it could be expected to meet all reasonable environmental challenges
veterans may encounter (as well as many unreasonable ones).  In contrast,
the evaluation panel reported that the model [DELETED] "had significant
flaws outdoors," including having been difficult to turn in high grass,
veered to the right when climbing a gravel slope, and gotten stuck several
times on moderate grassy inclines.  Technical Evaluation, Pride [DELETED]
Wheelchair, at 6.  VA concluded that the model [DELETED]'s performance
problems would result in inconvenience to, and unacceptable safety risks
for, veterans.  

   While Pride challenges the agency's approach to evaluating outdoor
performance, we find no basis to question the agency's consideration of
the respective capabilities of the wheelchairs in this environment. 
Again, the original solicitation and amendment No. 6 both advised that the
agency would evaluate the samples for "[p]erformance (including but not
limited to the outdoor factors of ease of use, maneuverability, inclines,
obliques, comfort of ride, grass, mud, gravel, speed, and programmability
. . .)."  RFP at 36; amend. 6.  While the agency recognized that it was
testing the wheelchairs in environments that were more challenging than a
user would normally encounter--such as grassy, slopes, sand, and gravel
inclines--it did so in order to "be sure that if a veteran were to
encounter an unusual situation, such as a mud puddle, the veteran would be
less likely to get trapped . . .."  Price Negotiation Memorandum at 7.  We
find the agency's evaluation approach in this regard to be both reasonable
and consistent with the evaluation approach as set forth in the RFP.

   Pride also asserts that award to Invacare was improper because award was
made after the end of the period for the acceptance of offers as
established by amendment No. 6.  However, it is not improper for an agency
to accept an expired offer where, as here, acceptance is not prejudicial
to the competitive system.  See BioGenesis Pacific, Inc., B-283738, Dec.
14, 1999, 99-2 CPD P 109 at 6; CDA Inv. Techs., Inc.--Recon., B-272093.3,
Mar. 11, 1997, 97-1 CPD P 103 at 8.  Acceptance of Invacare's expired
offer did not prejudice the competitive system since nothing in the record
indicates that Invacare sought or obtained an unfair competitive
advantage.  Specifically, Invacare offered the required acceptance period,
and at no time refused to extend its offer for an additional period.  See
Krug Life Sciences, Inc., B-258669, B-258669.2, Feb.A 22, 1995, 95-1 CPD P
111 at 3; The Fletcher Constr. Co., Ltd., B-248977, Oct. 15, 1992, 92-2
CPD PA 246 at 5-6.

   Pride questions the integrity of the procurement, noting that the
contracting officer, in response to an earlier Pride protest of the
solicitation terms, encouraged Pride to withdraw its protest.  Pride
points out in this regard that VA has previously acknowledged that, while
the agency's review of the matter found no evidence that the contracting
officer had intimidated Pride, it was inappropriate, and inconsistent with
VA policy, for the contracting officer to contact Pride once a protest had
been filed.  This argument provides no basis for sustaining the protest. 
Government officials are presumed to act in good faith, and a protester's
claim that contracting officials were motivated by bias or bad faith must
be supported by convincing proof; our Office will not attribute unfair or
prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference or
supposition.  Chapman Law Firm, LPA, B-293105.6 et al., Nov.A 15, 2004,
2004 CPD P __ at 4; Shinwha Elecs., B-290603 et al., Sept. 3, 2002, 2002
CPD 154 at 5 n.6.  The mere fact that the contracting officer sought to
persuade Pride to withdraw its initial protest does not demonstrate that
the subsequent evaluation was motivated by bias or bad faith, and Pride
has presented no other evidence that this was the case.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Although Pride also resubmitted samples for a second wheelchair, its
protest concerns only the evaluation of its model [DELETED].

   [2] Pride points out that Invacare's [DELETED] wheelchair received only an
acceptable rating for braking distance, with the evaluation panel noting
that its long stopping distance "[m]ay present a safety hazard, if not
programmed slower for the less adept veteran."  Technical Evaluation,
[DELETED], at 2.  As noted by VA, however, the longer braking distance was
attributed by the panel to the [DELETED]'s high speed setting, which the
panel recognized could be remedied by programming the wheelchair for a
slower setting.  There is no basis for finding that this single concern
undermines the reasonableness of the agency's determination that the
[DELETED] was superior overall under the indoor evaluation.