The agency awarded a delivery order under an FSS contract. The protester objected to the order, arguing that one of the items listed in the awardee’s FSS contract did not match the item required by the solicitation. GAO agreed with the protester and sustained the protest. An agency cannot purchase items that are not listed on a vendor’s FSS contract.
Chicago American Manufacturing LLC, GAO B-420533, B-420533.2
Background
The Army issued an RFQ to holders of GSA schedule contracts for furniture. The RFQ sought furniture for buildings at a base in South Korea. In particular, the RFQ required a metal bunk bed that could accommodate a 38” W x 80” L mattress.
After receiving quotations from three vendors, the Army awarded a contract to Inovo, Inc. An unsuccessful vendor, Chicago American Manufacturing (CAM), protested.
Analysis
CAM argued that Inovo had quoted a product that was not listed on Inovo's GSA schedule. An agency may not use FSS procedures to purchase items not listed on a vendor’s GSA schedule. CAM argued that the bed listed on Inovo’s schedule was only 78” long, but the RFQ required an 80” bed.
GAO agreed with CAM. When there is a discrepancy between a schedule contract and a quote, the schedule is binding. Here, there was no dispute that Inovo’s FSS contract did not meet the RFQ’s requirements. Consequently, the Army had unreasonably found Inovo’s quote acceptable.
CAM is represented by Daniel Graham and Llewelyn M. Engel of McDermott Will & Emery LLP. The intervenor, Inovo, is represented by Todd M. Garland of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. The agency is represented by B. Seth Johnson of the Army. GAO attorneys Kenneth Kilgour and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.