TITLE: Knoll, Inc.; Steelcase, Inc., B-294986.3; B-294986.4, March 18, 2005
BNUMBER: B-294986.3; B-294986.4
DATE: March 18, 2005
**********************************************************************
Decision
Matter of: Knoll, Inc.; Steelcase, Inc.
File: B-294986.3; B-294986.4
Date: March 18, 2005
John A. Burkholder, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for Knoll, Inc.;
and Kenneth F. Oettle, Esq., Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross PC, for
Steelcase, Inc., the protesters.
Charles H. Carpenter, Esq., and Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., Pepper Hamilton
LLP, for Trade Products Corporation, an intervenor.
Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., and Capt. William M. Pannier, Department of
the Air Force, for the agency.
Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging evaluation of offerors' technical proposals is denied
where record shows that agency's evaluation was reasonable.
DECISION
Knoll, Inc. and Steelcase, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Trade
Products Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2816-04-0013,
issued by the Department of the Air Force for the Total Office Package and
Relocation Effort (TOPRE) contract. Knoll and Steelcase each challenge
the Air Force's evaluation of offerors' technical proposals, and Knoll
further contends that the agency improperly awarded the contract because
the current performance period of Trade Products' General Services
Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract expires prior
to the end of the TOPRE contract performance period.
We deny the protests.
BACKGROUND
The RFP anticipated award of a contract for new office furniture systems
and office relocation services at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems
Center at the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB). The effort will involve
moving approximately 2,900 personnel at the LAAFB to new office
facilities. The contractor will be responsible for relocation management,
the provision and installation of new office furniture, the move effort,
and personal computer disconnect/reconnect services. The contract base
performance period is for approximately 2 years, with an option to extend
the total period of performance to not more than 36 months.
The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror which provided a
technically acceptable proposal that represented the "best value" to the
government based on an assessment of past and present performance (recency
and relevance), past performance quality, and performance confidence. RFP
S M.2. Offerors were required to provide all required effort under GSA
FSS contracts. RFP S L.1.
Offerors were advised as follows: "The Technical Factor Proposal will be
evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Failure in any part or area will result
in failure of the Technical Factor Proposal. Only those offers determined
to pass the Technical Factor Proposal evaluation will be considered for
award." RFP S M.1.1. Offerors were required to demonstrate technical
acceptability based on the following criteria:
a. The Offeror's completed SOW [statement of work]/Proposal Cross
Reference Matrix will be evaluated for compliance to contract
requirements. Failure to meet any requirement will result in a "Fail" for
the technical proposal.
b. The Offeror's mock-ups will be evaluated for compliance to contract
requirements where the typical [furniture system] can demonstrate
compliance with a contract requirement. Failure of a typical [furniture
system] to demonstrate a requirement will result in a "Fail" for the
technical proposal.
RFP S M.2.2.3.
The agency received proposals from Steelcase, Knoll, Trade Products, and
three other offerors. The agency initially awarded the contract to
Steelcase on
September 29, 2004. However, the agency cancelled that award following
its decision sustaining an agency-level protest filed by Trade Products.
The agency conducted additional discussions with offerors and received
revised proposals. The agency subsequently selected Trade Products for
award on December 3. Following their respective debriefings, Steelcase
and Knoll filed protests of the award with our Office.
DISCUSSION
Steelcase argues that the agency improperly determined that its proposal
was technically unacceptable. Knoll and Steelcase each contend that the
agency failed to recognize flaws in the Trade Products technical proposal,
and thus improperly found that firm's proposal technically acceptable.
Finally, Knoll argues that the agency improperly selected Trade Products
for award, despite the expiration of the current performance period of the
Trade Products FSS contract prior to the time for completion of the TOPRE
contract.
Where a protester challenges an agency's evaluation of a proposal's
technical acceptability, our review is limited to considering whether the
evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the RFP and
applicable procurement statutes and regulations. National Shower Express,
Inc.; Rickaby Fire Support,
B-293970, B-293970.2, July 15, 2004, 2004 CPD P 140 at 4-5. Clearly
stated RFP technical requirements are considered material to the needs of
the government, and a proposal that fails to conform to such material
terms is technically unacceptable and may not form the basis for award.
Id.; Outdoor Venture Corp., B-288894.2,
Dec. 19, 2001, 2002 CPD P 13 at 2-3. An offeror is responsible for
affirmatively demonstrating the merits of its proposal and risks the
rejection of its proposal if it fails to do so. HDL Research Lab, Inc.,
B-294959, Dec. 21, 2004, 2005 CPD P 8 at 5.
As with any evaluation review, our chief concern is whether the record
supports the agency's conclusions. Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc.,
B-275786.2, Apr. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD P 144 at 9. To the extent that the
protesters disagree with the agency's reasonable evaluation, their mere
disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render the evaluation
unreasonable. Kathryn Huddleston & Assoc., Ltd.,
B-294035, July 30, 2004, 2004 CPD P 142 at 2.
Evaluation of Steelcase's Technical Proposal
The agency determined that Steelcase's proposal, which proposed its
"Answer" furniture system, was technically unacceptable based on its
failure to meet SOW requirements in four primary areas: raising and
lowering of panels without disturbing adjacent components, continuous
lay-in of cables/wires, additional cabling and faceplate requirements, and
maintenance of a 6-inch separation between power wiring and communications
cabling. Agency Report (AR) Tab 21E, Final Steelcase Evaluations,
Evaluation Notices (ENs) 001-AA, 005-AA, 006-AA, 022-AA. Although these
issues were identified as separate technical deficiencies in the final
evaluation, the agency's rationales for finding Steelcase technically
unacceptable encompassed similar and overlapping rationales. Steelcase's
protest of the agency's final evaluation of its technical proposal is
primarily based on the three issues discussed below. Although we conclude
that the agency's evaluation of one of these issues was unreasonable, we
conclude that the agency reasonably evaluated the other two issues.
Power in the Baseline
The agency advised Steelcase during discussions that its placement of the
power wiring did not comply with the requirement that power be at the
"baseline," per SOW P 4.3.13. AR, Tab 21C, Discussions (Nov. 18, 2004),
EN 022-AA, at 1. During multiple rounds of ENs, the agency stated that
Steelcase's proposal did not meet the requirements for baseline power
because the power wiring was located at the level of furniture panels, not
at the baseplate level. Steelcase's final proposal offered a larger
9-inch baseplate so that the power wiring would now be covered by the
baseplate, not by a furniture tile: "The taller baseplate will cover both
the power line and any cables required. The power line will no longer be
situated under the tile above the baseplate. It will be under the
baseplate itself and thus *at the baseline.'" AR, Tab 20E, Steelcase
Final EN Response, at 1. Nonetheless, the agency still concluded that
Steelcase's proposal was technically unacceptable: "Once [communications]
cabling is installed at the baseline, as depicted, power no longer is
installed at the baseline, but more than six inches above the baseline."
AR, Tab 21E, Final Steelcase Evaluation, EN 022-AA, at 4.
Because the agency expressed its view during discussions that the baseline
was the area below the furniture tiles, it is unclear why the agency
continued to consider the power wiring to be located above the baseline
when Steelcase clearly demonstrated that the power wiring was housed under
the baseplate below the furniture tiles. In the absence of any further
explanation from the agency, because Steelcase's final EN response
demonstrated that the power wiring would be within the enlarged baseplate,
we conclude that the agency unreasonably determined that Steelcase's
proposal was technically unacceptable on this basis.
Separation of Power and Communications Cables
The agency advised Steelcase during discussions that its proposal did not
demonstrate the required 6-inch separation between the power wiring and
communications cabling, per SOW P 4.3.3, which states: "Separation
between electrical wiring and communication cabling shall be a minimum of
6 inches
(12 inches is desirable)."
In its response to the second round of ENs, Steelcase provided a
photograph, illustrating by means of a ruler, that the power wiring was
located more than six inches from the communications cabling. AR, Tab
20D, EN Response (Nov. 20, 2004), EN 022-AA. The agency concluded based
on this photo and the written EN response that the 6-inch separation
requirement had been met. AR, Tab 21D, Discussions (Nov. 24, 2004), EN
022-AA, at 4. The agency also concluded, however, based on this response
and photos, that the baseline power requirement, discussed above, had not
been met, as the photo showed the power wiring at the bottom of one of the
furniture tiles. Id. In its final evaluation, the agency determined that
the new configuration containing the 9-inch baseplate did not clearly
demonstrate compliance with the 6-inch separation requirement: "Offeror's
newly-proposed base trim member provides a cavity that appears to allow a
six-inch clearance between electric power and data/telecom cabling; the
configuration is not conclusive." AR, Tab 21E, Final Steelcase
Evaluation, EN 001-AA, at 4. The agency concluded that it was unable to
reconcile the new photos showing a 9-inch baseplate with prior photos
showing a different baseplate. Second Declaration of Agency Source
Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) Chair at PP 14-20. The agency notes that
the revised photos showing the 9-inch baseplate did not contain a ruler
demonstrating the separation distance and, furthermore, the agency
determined that the photo shown had fewer cables than would be required in
the final assembled product, thus calling into question whether Steelcase
still demonstrated compliance with the
6-inch separation requirement. Contracting Officer's (CO's) Statement
(Steelcase Protest) at 4.
Steelcase argues that it had addressed the 6-inch separation issue in a
previous EN response and, therefore, it was not required to demonstrate
compliance with this requirement in the subsequent ENs. However, all ENs
clearly stated that for each subject requirement, e.g., 6-inch separation,
power in the baseline, and continuous lay-in, Steelcase was required to
demonstrate compliance in conjunction with other requirements. For
example, the penultimate and final ENs each stated that although the
6-inch separation issue, standing alone, may have been addressed through
the photos, the agency was concerned with whether the separation could be
maintained in conjunction with other requirements, such as raising and
lowering of panels, continuous lay-in, and special cabling requirements
for 5 percent of work stations. See AR, Tab 21D, EN 006-AA, EN 022-AA.
Therefore, we believe it was reasonable for the agency to evaluate whether
a change in any feature had an effect on any other feature for purposes of
demonstrating compliance with the SOW requirements.
Steelcase now contends that it did not change the placement of the power
wires and communications cables from the configuration shown in its
earlier EN responses; rather, it maintains that it merely enlarged the
baseplate to cover both. However, its new photos illustrating the new
baseplate and displaying less than the full complement of wires and cables
led the agency to question whether the product configuration had
changed.[1] Thus, although Steelcase believed that the 6-inch separation
issue had been addressed in prior ENs and that its new baseplate did not
alter this previously-demonstrated compliance, it ran the risk that the
photos showing the new baseplate would raise new concerns. Because the
record does not clearly indicate whether the full 6-inch separation could
be achieved under these circumstances, we have no basis to question the
reasonableness of the agency's determination that Steelcase's proposal was
technically unacceptable for this requirement.
Continuous Lay-in
Offerors were required to demonstrate that their product design allowed
continuous lay-in of cables/wires: "Stacked and tiled panel systems shall
have a complete continuous *lay-in' raceway that requires no pulling of
wires between vertical and horizontal structural stacking elements." SOW
P 4.3.11. The agency issued an EN to Steelcase stating that although the
continuous lay-in requirement, standing alone, may have been met, the
requirement was not satisfied in conjunction with the requirement for
raising and lowering of panels, per SOW P 4.2.13, 6-inch separation
between cables/wires, per SOW P 4.3.3, and the requirement for additional
equipment and cabling in up to 5 percent of workstations, per SOW P
4.3.12. AR, Tab 21B, Discussions (Nov. 5, 2004), at EN 005.
After the first round of ENs, the agency determined that, based on
Steelcase's November 9, 2004 product demonstration and its written
responses to the ENs, Steelcase had demonstrated that it could achieve
continuous lay-in of cables/wires in the top channel of the assembled
furniture. AR, Tab 21C, Discussions (Nov. 18, 2004), EN 005-AA, at 1-2.
However, the agency determined that continuous lay-in was not possible in
the base. Id. at 2.
Steelcase responded to the EN by asserting that it had addressed the
continuous
lay-in issue in its November 9 demonstration and that its proposal clearly
addressed the matter. AR, Tab 20D, Steelcase EN Response (Nov. 20, 2004),
at 11-12. Steelcase explained that its product featured continuous lay-in
in "top cap" pathway and base cavity. Id. This response, however, did
not specifically address continuous lay-in for the base. The photo
provided with the EN response primarily addressed the requirements for
placement of power wiring and the 6-inch separation of the cables/wires,
rather than continuous lay-in for the base. Additionally, as described by
a Steelcase technical consultant, the November 9 demonstration did not
address the continuous lay-in requirement for the base cavity:
I then demonstrated the routing of cables. The model consisted of two
panels at right angles. Cable was already routed along several pathways
in the model, including the base cavity. In the demonstration, I took a
bundle of cable and draped it into the channel at the top of the panel and
around the right angle formed by the two panels to show the method for
lay-in in the top channel. I did not handle the cable that was already
laid into the base.
Second Declaration of Steelcase Technical Consultant at P 5.
The agency's evaluation of Steelcase's November 20 EN response did not
directly address the lack of continuous lay-in for the base, but stated
that Steelcase still failed the continuous lay-in requirement and that
Steelcase's response "does not provide a change from the configuration of
the previous EN." AR, Tab 21D, Discussions
(Nov. 24, 2004), EN 005-AA, at 2. The agency again requested that
Steelcase "[d]emonstrate [that] you can propose a system that requires no
pulling of cabling through structural members at any point of panels
either vertically or horizontally" while meeting other provisions such as
baseline power and 6-inch separation. Id.
Steelcase's final proposal response, however, still did not address the
continuous lay-in requirement for the base. The response instead
expressed Steelcase's view that the only issues that remained for it to
address in the final EN response were the baseline power issue and an
issue pertaining to the technical specifications for the panels. AR, Tab
20E, Steelcase Final EN Response, at 1. Thus, Steelcase merely restated
its position that "[i]n demonstration and discussion on November 9, 2004,
and in writing on November 12 and again on November 22, 2004, Steelcase
explained how the company's furniture system permits cabling to be routed
vertically or horizontally with no pulling of cabling through structural
members at any point of the panels. The Air Force's remaining concern
appears to be whether Steelcase can do this while providing power at the
baseline in compliance with SOW 4.3.13." Id.
at 7. Steelcase then refers the agency to its response to the baseline
power EN and does not provide additional information concerning the
continuous lay-in capability.
The agency's final evaluation found that "[a]s per the mock up, and as can
be seen in the close-view photograph attached to Offeror's response to EN
6AA, 20 November 2004, once both base trim members are hooked onto
supporting panel posts, the path through the panel is a pass-through, not
a lay-in." AR, Tab 21E, Final Steelcase Evaluations, EN 006-AA, at 3.
The agency thus found that the Steelcase proposal failed to meet the
continuous lay-in requirement.
Steelcase now states that because it considered the continuous lay-in
requirement addressed by its prior EN responses, it did not address the
matter in the final response because "the limitation on the size of the EN
responses to three pages per EN discourage the presentation of photos
previously supplied." Steelcase Supplemental Comments, Feb. 9, 2005, at
2. An offeror that does not adequately respond to an agency's request for
additional information during discussions risks having its proposal
rejected as technically unacceptable, especially where, as here, the
offeror had multiple opportunities to address the same agency concern.
A-1 Serv. Co., Inc., B-291568, Jan. 16, 2003, 2003 CPD P 27 at 4. To the
extent Steelcase believes its prior answers should have satisfied the
agency, its disagreement with the agency's repeated requests for
information addressing the continuous lay-in requirement provides no basis
to challenge the agency's determination. Poly-Pacific Techs., Inc.,
B-293925.2, Dec. 20, 2004, 2004 CPD P 250 at 6.
We, therefore, conclude that the agency reasonably determined that
Steelcase failed to address the continuous lay-in requirement. Although
Steelcase has provided additional documentation and declarations from its
personnel regarding the features of its furniture system as part of its
filings in this protest, the record does not demonstrate that this
information was adequately conveyed to the agency during discussions.
Moreover, even if the information objectively established that Steelcase
met the continuous lay-in requirement, the agency was not advised of this
information during the evaluation of Steelcase's proposal and thus
reasonably concluded that Steelcase's proposal was technically
unacceptable based on Steelcase's proposal's apparent inability to provide
continuous lay-in of cable in the base cavity. An offeror is responsible
for providing a full discussion of its technical approach and methodology
within the four corners of its proposal and it is not unreasonable for an
agency to downgrade a proposal because the proposal lacks a detailed
discussion of the offeror's proposed approach. Noble Solutions, B-294393,
Sept. 10, 2004, 2004 CPD P 197 at 5.
In sum, we find that the agency reasonably determined that Steelcase's
proposal was technically unacceptable. Although we find that the agency's
concern regarding power in the baseline was not reasonable, the agency
reasonably identified technical deficiencies regarding the 6-inch
separation and the continuous lay-in requirements. As discussed above,
the technical acceptability determination was made on a pass/fail basis
and, consistent with the terms of the RFP, the agency could reasonably
determine that failure in any section was sufficient to find Steelcase's
proposal technically unacceptable. Poly-Pacific Techs., Inc., supra, at
3-4; Shilog Ltd., Inc., B-261412.4, Nov. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD P 260 at 9-10.
Evaluation of the Trade Products Technical Proposal
Knoll, whose proposal was found technically acceptable, argues that the
agency improperly determined that the Trade Products proposal to provide
the "Ethospace" furniture system, which is produced by Herman Miller,
Inc., was technically acceptable.[2] The agency determined that the Trade
Products proposal was technically acceptable based on evaluation of the
firm's written proposal, a November 10, 2004 demonstration, and a single
round of ENs. We conclude that the agency's evaluation of the Trade
Products proposal was reasonable.
Continuous Lay-in and Access to Cables
Knoll first argues that the Trade Products design features a junction
between a "spine" wall and a "wing" wall (which together form a
perpendicular "off-module" configuration) that requires a 19-inch bracket
at the top of the abutting panels. Knoll contends that this bracket
precludes "continuous lay-in" of cables/wire, as required by SOW P 4.3.11,
and further precludes "easy access to cabling without dismantling the work
surface or other major components," as required by SOW P 4.3.9. Knoll
refers to a Herman Miller catalog that describes "off modular"
configurations, i.e., those where a spine/return wall is connected to a
wing/off-module wall at a
90-degree angle. Knoll cites provisions of Herman Miller's catalog that
state that the spine walls must be connected to both the upper and lower
tiles of the wing wall, and that the upper tile therefore requires a
connecting bracket. Knoll argues that this bracket prevents continuous
lay-in and also precludes easy access to cabling.
The agency evaluated the continuous lay-in of the Ethospace product based
on the Trade Products written proposal and product demonstration, and
determined after issuing an EN to Trade Products that the requirements for
continuous lay-in were met. AR, Tab 19D, Request for Final Proposal.
Although the agency did not specifically address the issue raised by Knoll
in the EN to Trade Products, the agency now argues, in response to Knoll's
allegations, that the top of the Trade Products design may also "be
configured so that connections can be made at the top of the panels," and
that the panels "can also be configured so that all connections can be
made [deleted]," while still meeting the continuous lay-in requirement.
Memorandum of Law at 4. Trade Products also explains that the brackets
that Knoll alleges preclude continuous lay-in [deleted], and that Knoll's
reference to that bracket apparently relies on an outdated version of the
Herman Miller catalog. In illustrations explaining the continuous lay-in
feature attached to a declaration by its president, Trade Products
[deleted]. Comments of Trade Products, attach. A,
exh. 6.
The agency contends that a connection between the panels at a height of 38
inches without using a top bracket is a feasible solution that would allow
continuous lay-in, and the protester provides no conclusive basis to
dispute this view. Furthermore, to the extent that the Trade Products
proposal [deleted], as demonstrated in its comments, we do not think that
such an element indisputably precludes continuous lay-in, as [deleted].
See Comments of Trade Products, attach. A, exh. 6. Based on either
approach discussed by the agency, we have no basis to question the
reasonableness of the agency's conclusion that the Trade Products proposal
was technically acceptable.
Access to Panels
Knoll also argues that the Trade Products proposal connection between the
spine and wing walls precludes the removal of spine-wall panels, as
required by SOW
P 4.4.2: "Panel skins should have the ability to be removed, replaced and
reconfigured without removing the panel or panel frame from the panel
run." Knoll argues that the removal of these panels is not possible when
the wing walls are attached to the spine walls, and that the wing walls
must be removed prior to accessing the panels on the spine wall.
The agency did not identify any problems with the Trade Products proposal
concerning this issue in its evaluation. The agency now explains that the
Trade Products design allows access to the spine wall panels because
"during installation and reconfiguration, off-modular wing walls, if
present, are removed, and this clears the panel of any obstruction. Panel
skins can then be removed, replaced, and reconfigured without removing the
panels or panel frame from the panel run, which satisfies [SOW P] 4.4.2."
CO's Statement (Knoll Protest) at 4. The agency apparently interprets the
removal of the wing walls as adequate to satisfy the easy access
requirement.
Furthermore, Trade Products notes that its design provides a [deleted]
that allows for access to spine panels without the removal of the wing
walls. Declaration of the President of Trade Products at P 10. The
agency confirms that this feature was detailed during the Trade Products
demonstration: "Panel tiles can be removed with off-module walls in
place, and without removing the off module walls by use of a specific part
designed for this purpose. The SSET observed this during November 8, 2004
product demonstrations by Trade Products/Herman Miller." First
Declaration of SSET Chair at 3.
Although Knoll argues that the agency unreasonably relies on the position
that the removal of wing walls satisfies the requirements of SOW PP 4.4.2
and 4.3.11, we conclude that Trade Products and the agency have reasonably
described the ability to remove the spine panels of its product without
removal of the wing walls.
Based on our review of the record, we find no basis to challenge the
reasonableness of the agency's determination that the Trade Products
proposal was technically acceptable. Although Knoll challenges the
agency's evaluation, we find nothing in the Trade Products proposal or the
agency's evaluation that clearly demonstrates that the Trade Products
design does not meet the SOW requirements.
Federal Supply Schedule Contract Issue
Knoll also contends that the award to Trade Products was improper because
the Trade Products FSS contract will expire prior to the end of the
performance period for the TOPRE contract. As explained above, the
performance period for the TOPRE contract was anticipated at the time of
award to be approximately 2 years, with an option period that could extend
performance for a total not to exceed 36 months. Trade Products currently
has an FSS contract for the work to be provided under the TOPRE contract,
which will expire on January 31, 2006. Knoll notes that the TOPRE
contract award in December 2004 would mean that the performance of the
contract would conclude by approximately December 2006, and would thus
necessarily extend (with or without exercising the TOPRE contract option
period) beyond the expiration of the Trade Products FSS contract.
The Trade Products FSS contract, however, is in its first of three 5-year
performance periods and will be eligible for a 5-year renewal at the
conclusion of the current performance period in January 2006. We
solicited the views of GSA on this matter, and GSA advised that it regards
FSS contracts as being valid for purposes of award of a contract utilizing
a schedule as long as there are option periods that can be exercised that
would cover the contract award period, and there is no indication that the
FSS contract option will not be exercised. GSA Response at 2-3.[3] We
agree with GSA and, therefore, deny this ground of protest.
The protests are denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] Steelcase notes that its final EN response explained that the photos
were submitted only for the purpose of illustrating the new baseplate.
However, we think that the agency was reasonably concerned that the new
photos called into question compliance with the 6-inch separation
requirements, given the agency's repeated admonition that compliance with
the SOW technical requirements, such as separation of cables/wires, had to
be demonstrated in conjunction with other requirements, such as baseline
power.
[2] Both of the protest allegations regarding the Trade Products proposal
raised by Knoll were also raised by Steelcase. Steelcase protested two
additional grounds relating to the agency's evaluation of the Trade
Products technical proposal that were not raised by Knoll. Because we
conclude that the agency reasonably found Steelcase's proposal technically
unacceptable, we do not address its protest of the evaluation of the Trade
Products proposal, because Steelcase was not eligible for award and,
therefore, is not an interested party to protest those issues. Even if we
were to sustain Steelcase's protest on those issues, Steelcase would not
be able to demonstrate any prejudice from such errors because there was
another offeror, Knoll, whose proposal was found technically acceptable
and would be in line for award ahead of Steelcase. DynCorp Int'l LLC,
B-294232, B-294232.2, Sept. 13, 2004, 2004 CPD P 187 at 9-10.
[3] The record reflects that the agency consulted with a GSA FSS
contracting officer regarding the Trade Products schedule contract and was
informed that it was anticipated that the option on the schedule contract
would be exercised, thus extending the Trade Products FSS contract through
the end of the proposed contract. CO's Statement (Knoll Protest) at 3.