B-400434, CSI GmbH, October 22, 2008
![[Select for PDF file]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081208223718im_/http://www.gao.gov/graphics/pdf.gif)
Decision
Alexander
Stoebe and Patric E. Colp, for the protester.
Maj. Daniel A. Woolverton, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq.,
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
decision.
DIGEST
Protest alleging that vendor’s
products did not meet the solicitation requirements is denied where vendor’s
quotation provided evidence of compliance upon which the agency could
reasonably rely.
DECISION
CSI GmbH protests the award of
a contract to Mathy & Company Verpacksgungtechnik GmbH, under request for
quotations (RFQ)[1]
No. W912PE-08-T-0141,
issued by the U.S. Army Contracting Command,
The RFQ provided for the award
of a contract to the vendor submitting the quotation determined to represent
the best value to the government based upon the factors of product compliance,
past performance, and price. RFQ at
11. The solicitation informed vendors
that product compliance was a pass/fail factor that would be evaluated by
determining “whether the products proposed meet (or exceed) the minimum
requirements listed in the solicitation.”
A technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. This may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary.
RFQ at 8, 11. Product samples were not required and product
testing was not part of the product compliance evaluation.
The agency received quotations
from three vendors. CSI’s and Mathy’s quotations
were found to pass the product compliance factor,[2]
and both had equal past performance ratings.
Thus, price became the determinative factor for award, and the
contracting officer decided that Mathy’s lower priced quotation provided the
best value to the government and made award to that firm. Agency Report (AR) at 4.
CSI protests that Mathy’s film products are not compliant
with the statement of work requirements.
In reviewing protests of agency evaluations, we will not
reevaluate proposals; rather, we will review the record to ensure that the
evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with
the terms of the solicitation and with procurement statutes and regulations. Matrix Gen., Inc., B-282192,
Based on our review of the record, we find that the
agency’s evaluation was in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and
that the award decision was reasonable. Mathy’s
quotation included a chart that specifically indicated that each of its film products
would comply with the various statement of work requirements. AR, Tab 6, Mathy’s Quotation, at 4. While CSI argues that its own independent
tests of Mathy’s products show that they do not meet the statement of work
specifications, we find no basis on this record why the agency could not accept
the evidence provided by Mathy with its quotation to determine that Mathy’s
offered products were acceptable. In any
case, as noted by the agency, we agree that the test results provided by CSI suggesting
noncompliance are not clearly documented.
In addition, while CSI asserts that it tested Mathy film samples
provided under a prior contract that it obtained from the agency, the agency
asserts that it provided CSI with the film samples of several manufacturers
with no identification of the manufacturer of the film sample provided.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1]
We recognize that this protest involves an RFQ; however, the
agency throughout its procurement record makes reference to the award of a contract. We
have retained the language used by the agency in some instances for consistency
with the underlying record.
[2]
Initially, CSI’s product compliance was rated as “FAIL” by the technical
evaluation panel because CSI did not provide the required documentation to
prove that its vacuum film would meet or exceed the specifications. Nonetheless, the evaluators gave CSI a rating
of “PASS” after examining a prior submission by CSI. AR at 3-4.