TITLE: B-298123; B-298123.2; B-298123.3, Capitol Supply, Inc., June 28, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298123; B-298123.2; B-298123.3
DATE: June 28, 2006
*********************************************************************
B-298123; B-298123.2; B-298123.3, Capitol Supply, Inc., June 28, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Capitol Supply, Inc.

   File: B-298123; B-298123.2; B-298123.3

   Date: June 28, 2006

   Robert Steinman for the protester.

   Kacie A. Haberly, Esq., General Services Administration, 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

   Proposal preparation instructions included in a commercial item
   solicitation for furniture and furnishings that require the submission of
   presentation boards which include photographs (rather than line drawings
   or renderings) of 90 percent of the items offered are reasonably based and
   not overly burdensome, where the solicitation is for commercial items,
   requires the submission of current catalogs as well as sample items, and
   the agency amended the solicitation to include the protested requirement
   because of the difficulties it encountered in evaluating submissions that
   included more than a limited number of line drawings and renderings.

   DECISION

   Capitol Supply, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No.
   3FNH-05-F015-N, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for
   furniture and furnishings. Capitol argues that certain provisions of the
   solicitation as revised are unnecessary and in excess of the agency's
   minimum needs, and unduly restrict competition.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued April 21, 2005, provides for the award of a fixed-price
   requirements contract for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year option
   periods in support of the agency's Packaged Home Program (PHP). According
   to the agency, the PHP, through a memorandum of understanding between GSA
   and the Department of State, has "successfully provided U.S. Government
   personnel stationed at diplomatic and consular posts abroad with their
   household furniture and furnishing requirements" since the inception of
   the PHP in the late 1950s. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1; RFP at
   88. Under the contract to be awarded here, furniture and furnishings will
   be available to certain "high-level" government personnel "as `package'
   orders (i.e., a complete one, two, or three bedroom home) or individual
   rooms," and as separate pieces. Agency Report (AR) at 2. The solicitation
   specifies that "[t]o ensure availability, furniture and furnishings
   supplied under this contract shall be commercial residential products,"
   and provides that "[c]ommercial items are supplies or services used for
   other than Government purposes and sold or traded to the general public in
   the course of normal business operations." RFP at 89.

   The solicitation requires that furniture be offered and available to the
   agency during the course of contract performance in 18^th Century, Louis
   Philippe, Mission, and Contemporary styles, and "broadly define[s]" the
   distinguishing characteristics of each of these four styles. RFP at 89.
   The solicitation also includes detailed "minimum requirements for
   materials to be used in construction and assembly" of the furniture and
   furnishings to be provided. RFP at 95-102.

   The solicitation includes detailed proposal preparation instructions. The
   RFP specifies that the technical proposal is to consist of the following
   11 sections: overview, descriptions of each room, index of all deviations
   and minor modifications, support services plans, overall management plan,
   past performance, commercial product information, presentation boards,
   cutaway illustrations, finish step panels, and construction material data
   sheets. RFP at 158-60. The commercial product information section of the
   technical proposal is to include "current catalogs and price lists for
   each style line proposed" and states that "sales data (categorized by
   Government and non-Government sales) may be requested for any/all
   lines/items." RFP at 159.

   The solicitation provides for the award of a contract to the offeror
   submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the
   government, based upon technical/quality, management, and cost/price
   evaluation factors.[1] RFP at 163-64. The solicitation informs offerors
   that the agency intends to conduct discussions, and that "[s]ource
   selection samples will be requested from each offeror who is determined to
   be in the competitive range."[2] RFP at 163. The solicitation states that
   the agency will be "more concerned with obtaining superior
   technical/quality and management features [than] with making an award at
   the lowest overall cost to the Government." RFP at 164.

   The agency received four proposals by the RFP's closing date of August 9,
   2005. The agency found in evaluating proposals for compliance with the
   solicitation's proposal preparation instructions and specifications that
   the proposals were lacking in certain areas. As noted, the solicitation
   requires that offerors include "presentation boards" as part of their
   proposals as follows:

     Presentation boards must include clear, color photographs of all house
     styles, student bedrooms and supplemental items. Each photograph shall
     be identified with manufacturer, style or line, model number, and
     dimensions. A limited number of line drawings may be used to supplement
     the photographs; however, photographs must be provided for each
     manufacturer and style offered.

   RFP at 160. The agency explains that "presentation boards are intended to
   be a collection of photographs from each offeror's catalog, presented on
   poster board, to represent the full complement of furniture and
   supplemental items being offered in response to the RFP." AR at 6. The
   agency found, however, that the presentation boards submitted by the
   protester included "many renderings," including "almost 100% renderings of
   wood furniture items on some boards." Id. The agency explains that "[t]he
   excessive number of line drawings and renderings made it very difficult,
   if not impossible, to adequately evaluate the offered product."[3] AR at
   7.

   Because the agency found that the unexpectedly large quantities of line
   drawings and renderings submitted proved impossible to adequately evaluate
   in terms of dimensions, hardware, and features, the agency determined that
   it was necessary to clarify the solicitation's requirements with regard to
   the submission of presentation boards. Id. Specifically, the solicitation
   as issued required the submission of "clear, color photographs of all
   house styles, student bedrooms and supplemental items," and only allowed
   that "[a] limited number of line drawings may be used to supplement the
   photographs." RFP at 160. In view of the presentation boards presented,
   the agency determined that the phrase "limited amount" needed to be
   objectively defined, and that "[i]n order to maximize competition and
   allow the protester to remain in the competition, should it choose to,"
   "renderings," which had not been mentioned in the initial solicitation,
   would be specifically identified in the RFP "as a substitute for line
   drawings." AR at 7.

   Accordingly, the agency issued amendment 10 to the solicitation on March
   17, 2006. Besides presentation boards, Amendment 10 made a number of
   revisions to the purchase description, including certain of the minimum
   requirements for the construction and assembly of certain items. With
   regard to the presentation boards, amendment 10 (at 2) provides as
   follows:

     `A limited number of line drawings' is defined as not exceeding 10% of
     the items shown on a presentation board, broken down by room or
     accessory grouping. When making this calculation, each item, as defined
     by model number, is counted one time. Calculation results are rounded to
     the nearest whole number. Calculations are based on counting only
     seating, casegoods (including tables, headboards, mirrors) and lamps
     shown on the board(s). Renderings are considered to be in the same
     category as line drawings.

   Capitol challenges the terms of the solicitation, arguing, among other
   things, that the revisions made by amendment 10 to the proposal
   preparation instructions for the presentation boards were unnecessary and
   "unduly restrictive because only furniture manufacturers who have existing
   products will be able to provide photographs." Protest (B-298123) at 4.
   Capitol asserts here that "[a]n artistic rendering provides the same
   ability to evaluate products as a photograph as an artistic rendering
   emphasizes the correct reproduction of light-and-shadow and the surface
   properties of the depicted objects." Id. In support of this assertion,
   Capitol provided with its protest copies of the presentation boards it had
   submitted to the agency with its proposal. Id., exh. B. The protester
   represents that its manufacturers "currently do not manufacture furniture
   to the Solicitation's specifications and will have to make minor
   modifications to their commercial lines to accommodate the GSA's
   requirements," and that "[a]s a result, Capitol does not have photographs
   and will not have photographs until the first piece of furniture
   manufactured to GSA's specifications has been made." Protester's Supp.
   Comments (May 24, 2006) at 7-8. Simply put, Capitol states that it "cannot
   take photographs of what is not yet in existence." Protester's Supp.
   Comments (May 30, 2006) at 2.

   The amount of information to be included in proposals and proposal format
   requirements are matters properly within the judgment of contracting
   officials; we will not sustain a protest challenging that judgment unless
   it is unreasonable. Essex Electro Eng'rs, Inc., B-252288.2, July 23, 1993,
   93-2 CPD para. 47 at 5. Given the context of this procurement as well as
   the agency's explanation for the revisions to the proposal preparation
   instructions set forth previously, we conclude that the agency's
   requirements regarding the submission of presentation boards are
   reasonable.

   We have reviewed the copies of the presentation boards submitted by the
   protester in support of its protest, as well as certain actual
   presentation boards submitted to the agency with initial proposals
   (including those submitted by the protester). Based upon our review of
   these boards, we find reasonable the agency's position that the extensive
   line drawings and renderings of the furniture made it difficult, in
   comparison to the presentation boards' photographs, to evaluate the
   offered furniture and furnishings in terms of dimensions, hardware, and
   features. That is, the photographs appear, consistent with the views of
   the agency, to provide more detail with regard to the furniture and
   furnishings offered than do the renderings or line drawings.

   As to the protester's complaint regarding the burden this requirement
   imposed on it, we note that the RFP's proposal preparation instructions
   include a section that expressly recognizes that the furniture and
   furnishings offered may deviate or "require minor modification" from the
   solicitation's purchase description "in terms of materials, construction,
   and/or dimensions." RFP at 158. Given this provision, we fail to see why
   the protester or any other offeror was precluded from providing
   photographs of existing furniture or furnishings and noting how the
   offered products deviated from and/or would need minor modification to
   meet the solicitation's requirements.

   Further, as mentioned previously, the solicitation specifies that "[t]o
   ensure availability, furniture and furnishings supplied under this
   contract shall be commercial residential products," and provides that
   "[c]ommercial items are supplies or services used for other than
   Government purposes and sold or traded to the general public in the course
   of normal business operations." RFP at 89. We fail to see, and the
   protester has not explained, how an offeror that can comply with the
   requirement that the furniture or furnishings offered be commercial items
   or products, would find it difficult or, in the protester's case based
   upon the protester's representations, impossible, to provide photographs
   of the offered items under the circumstances here. In this regard, we also
   find the protester's position that the presentation board format
   requirement is overly burdensome because "Capitol does not have
   photographs and will not have photographs until the first piece of
   furniture manufactured to GSA's specifications has been made" inconsistent
   with a solicitation requiring commercial items and products, the
   submission of commercial product information, including "current
   catalogs," and the submission of numerous sample items for evaluation
   during the conduct of the procurement. RFP at 89, 159, 163; Protester's
   Supp. Comments (May 24, 2006) at 8. Thus, we find the agency's requirement
   regarding the provision of photographs on the presentation boards to be
   reasonable.

   Capitol has made a variety of other challenges to the terms of Amendment
   10 and to the alleged failure of the agency to provide it adequate
   information to submit an acceptable revised proposal.[4] However, as set
   out above, Capitol concedes that it cannot comply with the requirement
   that the presentation boards contain 90 percent photographs. Because
   Capitol, by its own admission, cannot submit a proposal compliant with the
   proposal preparation instructions, which we have found to contain
   reasonable requirements, it is not an interested party under our Bid
   Protest Regulations eligible to pursue the remainder of its protest.
   4 C.F.R. sect. 21.0(a) (2006); Carahsoft Tech. Corp., B-297112, Nov. 21,
   2005, 2005 CPD para. 208 at 3 n.3.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The RFP provides that the technical/management factor is comprised of
   a workmanship/construction subfactor and an overall presentation/style
   subfactor, while the management factor is comprised of program support
   services, overall management plan, and past performance subfactors. RFP at
   163.

   [2] The RFP lists more than 20 pieces of furniture and furnishings that
   "must be submitted for evaluation," such as a "dining arm chair." RFP at
   160.

   [3] According to the agency, "[a] rendering in the context of this
   procurement is an artistic representation, in perspective view, of the
   furniture items being offered. Renderings are basically `colored/shaded
   in' line drawings and were therefore, considered to be in the same
   category of illustration as line drawings, which can also be in
   perspective view, is generally a pen and ink outline and not shaded or
   colored, as is a rendering." AR at 6-7.

   [4] Specifically, Capitol also argues that the revisions made by amendment
   10 to the number of finish steps and thickness of the back panels required
   on certain pieces of furniture (each of which actually relaxed the
   requirement set forth in the RFP as issued), as well as the gloss levels
   required, are overly restrictive of competition. The protester further
   argues that the solicitation's description of the styles required, as set
   forth in the solicitation as issued, and the agency's use of the terms
   "formal" and "informal" in amendment 10, are ambiguous. Capitol also
   asserts that the agency's letters to offerors in anticipation of
   establishing the competitive range constituted discussions, which
   according to the protester were inadequate.