TITLE: B-298573, Joint Systems, Inc., October 6, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298573
DATE: October 6, 2006
**********************************************
B-298573, Joint Systems, Inc., October 6, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Joint Systems, Inc.

   File: B-298573

   Date: October 6, 2006

   Robert G. Goetzman for the protester.

   Vera Meza, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency.

   Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office
   of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
   decision.

   DIGEST

   Where request for quotations (RFQ) for thumbdrives required vendors to
   submit an image of a thumbdrive with a write-protect switch to demonstrate
   compliance with RFQ requirements pertaining to the switch, agency
   reasonably rejected protester's quotation, which did not include an image
   of the switch, as unacceptable.

   DECISION

   Joint Systems, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order for 2,550
   thumbdrives to Global Channel Solutions, Inc. under request for quotations
   No. 9K60425, issued by the Program Executive Office, Enterprise
   Information Systems, Technology Applications Office of the Department of
   the Army. Joint Systems complains that its quotation was for a technically
   acceptable product and was lower in price than Global's.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ, which was furnished to prospective vendors via e-mail on July 5,
   2006, consisted of two pages: a schedule that included a paragraph of
   "special instructions" identifying significant features of the thumbdrives
   and a page of specifications that furnished additional details regarding
   the required characteristics of the drives. An e-mail message accompanying
   the two attachments notified vendors that the government intended "to
   award without discussions a Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) purchase order to the
   responsive offeror whose quote conforms to the requirement and who is
   offering the lowest price." The e-mail message further notified vendors
   that quotations were to be submitted via e-mail by 1 p.m. on July 10,
   2006.

   Both the special instructions and the specification page identified an
   external, finger-operated write-protect switch as one of the required
   features of the thumbdrives. The specifications emphasized that the switch
   had to extend above the body of the drive so as to be operable by finger
   without the use of any type of tool. The RFQ required the submission of a
   "clear color close-up image" of the switch, presumably to demonstrate its
   conformance to the above requirement.

   Prior to the specified closing time, Joint Systems furnished the agency
   with a quotation of "$27.95 per thumb drive as per attached
   specification." When the contracting officer responded that she had not
   received "the attachment," the protester sent the following clarifying
   message:

   I meant the specifications you attached. This time I have attached them.
   $27.95 each for thumb drive as per attached specification.

   A copy of the specifications that had been furnished to the vendors, which
   included the requirement for submission of the color image of the switch,
   with the heading "Joint Systems" typed at the top, was attached.

   After the specified closing time on July 10, the protester sent the
   contracting officer an additional e-mail proposing (at a substantially
   higher price) a product incorporating a biometric switch for the top
   secret drives.[1] The e-mail included an image of the proposed product.
   The protester sent additional e-mails proposing various product
   innovations to the contracting officer on July 17, 19, and 20. The July 19
   message included an image of a drive with an external switch and a folding
   metal cover.

   Nine vendors in addition to the protester submitted quotations prior to
   the deadline specified by the agency. The agency's technical evaluators
   conducted their evaluation on July 13 and found 7 of the 10 quotations,
   including the protester's, technically unacceptable. With regard to Joint
   Systems' quotation, the evaluators noted as follows:

   The submitted documents did not include the required image of the write
   protect switch; the proposal reiterates our specs but does not address
   them. The image provided does not show a write-protect switch. The
   proposed drive does not meet the specs and is not acceptable.

   Global Channel Solution's quotation was the lowest-priced of the
   technically acceptable quotations and was selected to receive the order on
   that basis. On July 21, the contracting officer issued a purchase order to
   Global Channel Solutions for a total of 2,550 thumbdrives at a unit price
   of $29 per thumbdrive. The protester was notified of the order on July 22
   and protested to our Office on August 1.

   The protester takes issue with the evaluators' findings with regard to its
   quotation, arguing that by offering a price and taking no exception to the
   specifications, it should have been assumed to be quoting on the exact
   item requested by the agency. The protester further argues that it did
   furnish an image of a thumbdrive with an external, finger-operated
   write-protect switch, as required by the RFQ.

   In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of quotations, we
   examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was
   reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and
   applicable statutes and regulations. American Artisan Prods., Inc.,
   B-286239, Nov. 29, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 198 at 2. Here, we think that the
   agency reasonably rejected the quotation as unacceptable based on the
   protester's failure to furnish an image demonstrating that the thumbdrive
   that it was offering contained an external write-protect switch.

   The RFQ required vendors to submit an image of the write-protect switch,
   presumably, as noted, to demonstrate the switch's compliance with the
   requirement that it extend above the body of the drive so as to be
   operable by finger (i.e., without the use of a tool). It is the vendor's
   responsibility to submit the information requested by the agency for
   evaluation purposes, and a vendor that does not do so runs the risk that
   its quotation will be rejected as unacceptable. 3K Office Furniture
   Distribution GmbH, B-292911, Dec. 18, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 231 at 4. Here,
   the only image that the protester furnished to the contracting officer
   prior to the technical evaluation on July 13 was the image of the drive
   incorporating a biometric switch that it proposed for the top secret
   drives.[2] Even assuming that this image satisfied the RFQ requirement for
   an image of a finger-operated write-protect switch with regard to the top
   secret drives, the fact remains that the protester furnished no image of
   the switch that it was proposing for the unclassified and secret drives.
   While the protester maintains that it had previously furnished a color
   picture of a thumbdrive with an appropriate switch in response to an
   earlier RFQ that was cancelled, the protester made no reference to the
   previously submitted image in the quotation that it submitted in response
   to the RFQ here; given the lack of any reference to the previous
   submission, we do not see how the evaluators should have been expected to
   know of its existence and/or the fact that it was an image of the product
   that Joint Systems intended to furnish here. Accordingly, we think that
   the evaluators reasonably rejected the protester's quotation as
   technically unacceptable for failing to furnish a picture of a
   write-protect switch conforming to the solicitation requirements for the
   secret and unclassified drives.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] One third of the drives solicited were to be marked unclassified; one
   third were to be marked secret; and one third were to be marked top
   secret.

   [2] While it was appropriate for the agency to consider information
   received prior to July 13 (such as the image of the thumbdrive with the
   biometric switch) in its technical evaluation given that the RFQ did not
   contain a provision barring consideration of late quotations, the agency
   properly did not consider information received after the evaluation had
   been performed (such as the image of the thumbdrive with folding metal
   cover). See Payne Constr., B-291629, Feb. 4, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 46 at 5.
   It is also not clear that, in any event, the thumbdrive with the folding
   metal cover was the thumbdrive originally quoted or that it was being
   quoted at the same price.