TITLE:  Chicago Dryer Company, B-293940, June 30, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293940
DATE:  June 30, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

    

    

   Matter of:   Chicago Dryer Company

    

   File:            B-293940

    

   Date:              June 30, 2004

    

   H. K. Tyler Jr. for the protester.

   Dennis Foley, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans
Affairs, for the agency.

   Angela A. Wu and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

    

   1.  Protest challenging agency*s selection decision is timely when filed
within 10 days of protester*s receipt of information from contracting
agency explaining the basis for the agency*s decision.

    

   2.  Contracting agency reasonably considered additional, value-added
features offered by vendor where solicitation stated that quotations
offering features beyond those specified in the solicitation, and found to
be of value to the agency, would be favorably considered in the
evaluation.

    

   3.  Contracting agency reasonably selected technically superior, slightly
higher-priced quotation where solicitation provided for selection of
quotation found most advantageous to the government, and agency reasonably
determined that successful vendor*s additional technical features better
satisfied agency*s needs so as to outweigh small price premium, compared
to protester*s lower technically rated, slightly lower-priced quotation.

   DECISION

    

   Chicago Dryer Company (CDC) protests the issuance of an order to G.A.
Braun, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 244-04-00123 by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for laundry equipment at the VA
Medical Center laundry facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. CDC objects
to the agency*s evaluation of its and Braun*s quotations.
    

   We deny the protest.

    

   VA issued the RFQ on January 6, 2004 to procure two machines for folding
and stacking laundry, accompanied by training materials.  The RFQ
specified that *[e]quipment and materials shall be suitable for
installation in available space* and that the contractor must remove
existing laundry equipment to be utilized as a
trade-in.  RFQ at 2-3.  The solicitation also stated that the successful
vendor should *make a site visit to determine what equipment, if any, may
need to be moved and reinstalled.*  RFQ at 2-12.  Prior to submitting its
quotation, CDC sent a representative to visit the site, taking note of the
building footprint and equipment layout. 

    

   With regard to the evaluation process, the RFQ stated that VA did not
intend to hold discussions with vendors before issuing an order, so
quotations should contain the vendors* best terms from a price and
technical standpoint.  RFQ at 5-2.  The RFQ advised that VA would select
the quotation found to be most advantageous to the government, price and
other factors considered.  RFQ amend. 2, at 5-7a.  In addition to price,
the RFQ listed two evaluation factors, technical capability and
quality/past performance, which, when combined, were significantly more
important than price.  Id.  Under the technical capability factor, the RFQ
stated that a vendor*s *[a]bility to provide functions that are not
required by the specifications but described as *preferred* may increase
[the vendor*s] rating for this factor.* Id.

    

   VA received four quotations in response to the RFQ.  CDC*s price was
lowest at $137,530; Braun*s price ($137,712) was second lowest, and only
$182 higher than CDC*s.  The contracting officer appointed a technical
evaluation panel (TEP) to evaluate the technical quotations submitted. 
Under the technical capability factor, the TEP gave Braun*s quotation the
maximum score of five points; CDC*s quotation received four points.  The
TEP concluded that CDC*s equipment met all the technical specifications in
the RFQ, but expressed concern that the equipment would not fit properly
in the assigned area and might *cause congestion of the work area and
close off the pathway for cart movement.*  Agency Report, exh. 5, attach.
1, at 2.  With respect to Braun*s quotation, the TEP concluded that
Braun*s equipment exceeded the specifications.  The TEP emphasized that
Braun*s crossfolder and stacker could be linked with the microprocessing
of the spreader feeder, and that this was a *preferred feature, although
not required by the specifications.*  Id. at 1. 
It also pointed out that Braun*s equipment could be linked to VA*s
existing Washnet program, which would allow the VA supervisor to monitor
performance and productivity closely.  It called this a *very desirable
feature.*  Id.  With regard to the other non-price factor, quality/past
performance, both CDC*s and Braun*s quotations received the maximum score
available.  The TEP recommended selection of Braun*s quotation based on
the desirable additional features Braun offered.  The contracting officer
agreed with the TEP*s recommendation to select Braun, deeming Braun*s
quotation the *best value* to the government because of its technical
advantages, which warranted the $182 price premium. 

    

   On March 30, the contracting officer informed CDC via e-mail that VA had
not selected CDC*s quotation.  CDC immediately sent an e-mail to the
contracting officer advising that it would protest VA*s decision upon
receipt of formal notification and explanatory documents.  In a letter
dated April 5, postmarked April 8, and received by CDC April 11, VA again
notified CDC of its decision to select Braun and briefly explained the
reasons for its decision.  CDC filed its protest with our Office on
April 12.

    

   VA argues that CDC*s protest is untimely because it was not filed within
10 days of the contracting officer*s preliminary e-mail notice that CDC*s
quotation had not been selected.  See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. S:
21.2(a)(2) (2004).  We disagree.  The agency*s April 5 e-mail advising
that Braun*s quotation had been selected did not contain sufficient
information to put CDC on notice of its basis for protest.  Immediately
after receiving that e-mail, CDC acted reasonably and promptly by first
requesting further information from the agency, and then filing its
protest on
April 12, the same day it received the agency*s letter explaining in some
further detail the basis for the selection decision.  See Alliance
Properties, Inc., B-203539, Oct. 28, 1981, 81-2 CPD P: 357 at 2.

    

   CDC challenges VA*s evaluation of both its and Braun*s quotation, arguing
that VA improperly favored Braun in the source selection process, most
notably by applying what it deems arbitrary evaluation standards.  CDC
alleges that VA could not have properly evaluated CDC*s quotation under
the technical capability factor because CDC met all of the solicitation*s
technical criteria yet did not receive the maximum score.  In addition,
CDC asserts its equipment is equally capable of performing the *preferred
features* that earned Braun the maximum score, namely, linking with the
microprocessing of the existing spreader feeder and with the existing
Washnet monitoring program.  According to CDC, it was improper for VA to
consider these preferred features in the evaluation without having
specified them in the solicitation or discussing them with CDC. 
Similarly, CDC challenges VA*s conclusion that CDC*s equipment will not
fit properly into the facility because VA did not specify dimensional
requirements in its solicitation and did not discuss these requirements
with CDC.

    

   Where an agency*s evaluation is challenged, our Office will not reevaluate
quotations but instead will examine the agency*s evaluation to ensure that
it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 
Simms Indus., Inc., B-252827.2,
Oct. 4, 1993, 93-2 CPD P: 206 at 2.  Here, we see no basis to question the
agency*s evaluation or selection of Braun*s quotation.

    

   CDC first argues that it was unreasonable for VA to consider the
additional features Braun offered because these features were not
specified in the solicitation.  We disagree.  As noted above, the RFQ
expressly stated that VA would consider a vendor*s ability to offer
additional features not required by the specifications.  VA*s
consideration of the Braun equipment*s ability to link with VA*s existing
systems thus is entirely consistent with the RFQ.  Further, VA had no
obligation to hold discussions with CDC about its ability to offer this
feature given that the RFQ stated that VA did not intend to hold
discussions before selecting a vendor, see OMNIPLEX World Servs. Corp.,
B-282630.2, Sept. 22, 1999, 99-2 CPD P: 64 at 4, and, in fact,
specifically advised vendors to include their best terms from a price and
technical standpoint in their initial quotations. 

    

   Similarly, VA was under no obligation to specify its dimensional
requirements before downgrading the CDC equipment*s technical score for
its inability to fit properly into the VA laundry facilities.  The RFQ
stated that equipment must be suitable for installation in the available
space and that space limitations do exist for installation of the new
equipment.  It also advised vendors to perform a site visit to ensure that
they could move or reinstall existing equipment alongside new equipment. 
It clearly was reasonable for VA to give CDC a less-than-maximum technical
score for equipment that did not fit properly into the available space,
especially when CDC had the opportunity to--and in fact did--visit the
site for the very purpose of assessing such questions as whether its
equipment might cause congestion of cart pathways.[1]

    

   In a related argument, CDC asserts that its quotation should have been
selected because its equipment met all the solicitation criteria, and it
offered the lowest price.  Again, we disagree.  Where, as here, the
solicitation states that the agency will select the quotation found to be
most advantageous to the government, as opposed to selection of the
lowest-priced, technically acceptable vendor, the evaluation of proposals
is not limited to determining whether a proposal is merely technically
acceptable; rather, proposals may be further differentiated to distinguish
their relative quality by considering the degree to which technically
acceptable proposals exceed the stated minimum requirements or will better
satisfy the agency*s needs.  Israel Aircraft Indus., Ltd., MATA
Helicopters Div., B-274389 et al., Dec. 6, 1996, 97-1 CPD P: 41 at 4.

    

   Evaluating the relative merits of competing proposals is a matter within
the discretion of the contracting agency since the agency is responsible
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Simms
Indus., Inc., supra. 
As noted above, under the technical capability factor, VA found Braun*s
equipment technically superior to CDC*s based on its ability to link to
existing systems. 
In addition, VA reasonably questioned whether CDC*s equipment would fit
properly into the available space.  Given Braun*s technical superiority,
both vendors* receipt of the highest score available under the past
performance factor, and the solicitation*s provision that technical
capability and past performance combined would be more important than
price, we find nothing that would lead us to believe that VA unreasonably
determined that Braun*s quotation better satisfied the agency*s needs.  We
also find nothing unreasonable about VA*s conclusion that the technical
advantages in Braun*s quotation were sufficiently significant to outweigh
the small price premium.  Id. at 2. 

    

   CDC makes two further arguments challenging VA*s selection of Braun. 
First, CDC claims that VA improperly held discussions with other vendors
and engaged in technical leveling[2] by allegedly comparing quotations to
each other rather than evaluating them under the criteria in the RFQ.  CDC
provides no evidence, and we see none in the record, substantiating its
claim that such discussions occurred.  Further, as discussed above, the
record clearly shows that the evaluation was based on application of the
criteria in the RFQ.   Second, CDC contends that VA favored Braun in the
past performance evaluation by relying solely upon recommendations from VA
facilities instead of contacting all of CDC*s references.  Not only are
agencies not obligated to call all of a firm*s listed references, see
Basic Tech., Inc.,
B-214489, July 13, 1984, 84-2 CPD P: 45 at 7, but VA*s approach clearly
did not prejudice CDC, given that it received the maximum score available
under the past performance factor.

    

   The protest is denied.

    

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

    

    

    

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

   [1] In this regard, while CDC generally disagrees with the agency*s
conclusion regarding the size of its equipment, it has provided no
evidence to support its assertion that its equipment would fit in the
available space without interfering with other operations in the facility.

   [2] The term *technical leveling* means helping a firm bring its quotation
up to the level of others through successive rounds of discussions;
technical leveling no longer is expressly prohibited by the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.  Image One Tech. & Mgmt., Ltd., B-289334, Jan. 10,
2002, 2002 CPD P: 18 at 4.