TITLE: B-310790, C&H SERVICE Srl, February 5, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310790
DATE: February 5, 2008
*******************************************
B-310790, C&H SERVICE Srl, February 5, 2008

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
   Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: C&H SERVICE Srl

   File: B-310790

   Date: February 5, 2008

   Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., and Scott H. Gdanski, Esq., Gdanski & Gdanski, LLP,
   for the protester.

   Gary R. Allen, Esq., Candice D. Cleere, Esq., and Neil Whiteman, Esq.,
   Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably rejected protester's proposal where proposed item did
   not meet solicitation requirement for listing on specified certification
   website; agency reasonably disregarded protester's claim that proposed
   item was identical to another item listed on website where only supporting
   evidence was from protester and its suppliers.

   DECISION

   C&H SERVICE Srl protests the Department of the Air Force's rejection of
   its proposal, and the award of a contract to Sanson Bruno, under request
   for proposals (RFP) No. FS5682-07-R-0030, for furnishing and installing
   air conditioning units. C&H primarily asserts that the agency improperly
   determined that the firm's proposed units did not meet the RFP's
   requirement that the units be listed on a certification website.

   We deny the protest.

   On July 25, 2007, the Air Force issued the RFP for certain air
   conditioning units (units capable of both cooling and heating) to be
   installed at locations surrounding Aviano Air Base, Italy. The RFP
   required the units to meet various specifications, including that they be
   "EUROVENT certified" in a certain class, and that the air conditioner data
   be available at the website www.eurovent-certification.com. [1] AR, Tab
   18, at 1. In response to the RFP, the agency received six proposals,
   including the protester's and the awardee's. While the protester proposed
   one item at a single price, the awardee proposed six different brands of
   air conditioner at different prices, with four priced lower than the
   protester's. The other four proposals were eliminated from the competition
   for reasons not relevant here. The agency then sought information from C&H
   and Sanson Bruno regarding their proposed items' Eurovent certification.
   Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1.

   The agency determined that the awardee's four lowest-priced items were not
   Eurovent certified. With regard to the fourth lowest priced item, the
   agency requested product information from Sanson Bruno, and ultimately
   concluded that this item was not listed on the Eurovent website. The
   agency then requested information from C&H. The protester responded with a
   statement from another firm--apparently the supplier of the units to
   C&H--that the units were "from Bonaga Italia, brand Sermond, Model SRF 12
   H registered with Eurovent under the serial number MSH 12HRN1." AR, Tab
   13, B, at 3. The agency subsequently searched the Eurovent website and
   discovered that the brand name associated with this model number actually
   was Midea, manufactured by GD Midea Air Conditioning Company, Ltd. There
   was no mention of the brand name Sermond on the website. Legal Memorandum
   at 3. The agency then questioned C&H about its product a second time, and
   the protester responded with two more certifications, one from itself and
   one from Bonaga Italia. Both certifications stated that the proposed unit
   was marketed with the brand Sermond by Bonaga Italia, and was certified
   under the code MSH 12HRN1 of GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Company,
   Ltd. on the Eurovent certification website. Based on this exchange, the
   agency concluded that the protester's proposal was ineligible for award
   because there was no item under the Sermond brand listed on the Eurovent
   website. The agency thus made award to Sanson Bruno for its fifth
   lowest-priced unit, which was listed on the Eurovent website, at a price
   higher than C&H's. Upon learning that the agency had determined that its
   product was ineligible for award, C&H filed this protest.

   C&H primarily asserts that it should have received the award because its
   proposed unit actually was listed on the Eurovent website. In this regard,
   the protester asserts that its unit was in fact the Midea unit listed on
   the website, the only difference between the two units being the marketing
   name.

   Clearly stated RFP requirements are considered material to the needs of
   the government, and a proposal that fails to conform to such material
   terms is unacceptable and may not form the basis for award. Gear Wizzard,
   Inc., B-298993, Jan. 11, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 11 at 2. The procuring
   agency has primary responsibility for evaluating the technical information
   supplied by an offeror and determining the acceptability of the proposed
   item; we will not disturb such a determination unless it is shown to be
   unreasonable. Alpha Marine Servs., LLC, B-292511.4, B-292511.5, Mar. 22,
   2004, 2004 CPD para. 88 at 4.

   The agency's determination that C&H's proposed product was unacceptable
   for failing to meet the Eurovent listing requirement was reasonable. It is
   undisputed that C&H's proposed Sermond brand product was not listed on the
   Eurovent website under the brand as stated in C&H's proposal. This led the
   agency to seek information from C&H clearly establishing that its proposed
   Sermond product in fact was listed on the website. In response, C&H
   provided only statements from itself and a supplier that the Sermond
   product was actually a Midea product, with no independent information
   supporting the claim. C&H provided no supporting information from the
   manufacturer or from Eurovent, and the agency's search of the website
   under "Midea Manufacturing" did not yield any items with the Sermond
   brand. Legal Memorandum at 6. We note that, in connection with its
   protest, C&H has provided a letter from GD Midea Air Conditioning
   Equipment Company, Ltd. stating that the proposed unit is in fact
   identical to the listed Midea unit. Protester's Comments, Dec. 17, 2008,
   exh. 1. However, given C&H's failure to provide this information in
   response to the agency's request during the evaluation process, the agency
   reasonably concluded at that time that the protester had failed to
   demonstrate that its product was listed on the Eurovent website.

   C&H argues that the agency could not reject its proposal merely for
   lacking a specific certification. It cites decisions of our Office--e.g.,
   Pem All Fire Extinguisher Corp., B-231343.3, Nov. 2, 1988, 88-2 CPD
   para. 430--for the proposition that a requirement for a specific
   certification does not provide a basis for excluding a product from
   consideration. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests of alleged
   solicitation improprieties must be filed prior to the closing time for
   receipt of initial proposals. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2007). The RFP
   here clearly required proposed products to be listed on the Eurovent
   website. Thus, to the extent that C&H believed it was improper to require
   Eurovent certification, it was required to protest on this ground prior to
   the closing time. Since it did not do so, this aspect of its protest is
   untimely and will not be considered.

   Finally, C&H alleges that the agency did not treat it and the awardee
   equally, specifically, that the agency went to greater lengths in
   determining whether the awardee's fourth lowest priced item was listed on
   the website than it did in investigating whether C&H's product was listed.
   Had the agency made an equal effort, the protester asserts, it would have
   determined that C&H's product was in fact listed on Eurovent and found its
   proposal acceptable. This argument is without merit. The record shows that
   the agency provided both the awardee and the protester the same
   opportunity to demonstrate that their products were listed on the Eurovent
   website. As detailed above, both offerors were requested to provide
   information demonstrating that their products were listed, both submitted
   information, and the agency rejected both products on the basis that the
   information was not adequate to show that the products were listed. There
   thus is no basis for us to find unequal treatment. [2]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   >General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency required offerors to provide Eurovent-certified products as
   a means of insuring that it would receive quality products from reliable
   manufacturers. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, F, at 1.

   [2] The protester also challenges its past performance rating. However,
   since, as discussed above, its proposal was reasonably found to be
   technically unacceptable, the protester was not prejudiced by any error in
   this area. Its argument therefore provides no basis for sustaining the
   protest. See AEC-ABLE Eng'g Co., Inc., B-257798.2, Jan. 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD
   para. 37.