Protest challenging agency’s rejection of a proposal as technically unacceptable is denied. The solicitation sought a storage system with external trays. The agency rejected the protester’s quote because it proposed internal trays. The protester argued that the subfactor under which it was found unacceptable did not include a requirement for external trays. But the technical factor that included the contested subfactor included the requirement for external trays. The protester also argued that it was allowed to propose an alternate tray design because the requirement for external trays was not labeled as a “firm” requirement. But GAO found the protester’s interpretation of the contract absurd. If offerors were allowed to deviate from every requirement that was not labeled “firm,” then the provisions that expressly allowed alternate designs would be meaningless.
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) issued a request for quotations for vertical lift module storage systems. The statement of work for the RFQ required that the proposed storage systems have external delivery trays. Kardex Remstar, LLC submitted a quote in response to the RFQ, but proposed internal delivery trays. DLA found Kardex’s proposal unacceptable because it did not have external trays. Kardex protested.
Kardex first argued that DLA failed to adhere to the RFQ’s evaluation criteria. Specifically, Kardex contended, it was improper for DLA to find Kardex’s internal tray proposal unacceptable under the RFQ’s system design subfactor, because the evaluation under was limited to only assessing the quality of the equipment, commercial availability of parts, and the structural integrity of the design. DLA was not supposed to evaluate the internal trays under that subfactor.
GAO rejected this argument. While Kardex contended that compliance with the external tray was not encompassed in the system design subfactor, it was undisputed that under the technical factor—of which the system design factor is a subfactor—the RFQ stated that the agency would assess a vendor’s compliance with the performance requirements of the SOW, which included the external tray requirement.
Next, Kardex contended that because the external tray requirement was not labeled as a “firm” requirement, it was free to propose an alternate design approach with internal trays. Not so, said GAO. The RFQ only identified three aspects of the of the SOW under which offerors could submit alternate designs. Delivery trays were not included in this list, and the RFQ did not include any language indicating that an alternative to the external tray requirement was permitted. GAO reasoned that Kardex’s interpretation—i.e., that none of the requirements are firm unless labeled as “firm”—would turn the solicitation on its head rendering the language permitting alternatives superfluous and without effect.
Kardex is represented by Julie M. Nichols and James S. Phillips of Roeder, Cochran, Phillips, PLLC. The agency is represented by Timothy J. Ryan of the Defense Logistics Agency. GAO attorneys Paula A. Williams and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
