The solicitation required all-in-one personal computers. The protesters contended the awardee hadn’t complied with this requirement. Instead of an all-in-one computer, the awardee had proposed two devices: a separate monitor and computer. GAO found the agency reasonably accepted the awardee’s computer. The awardee’s device could be integrated into a single unit. Nothing in the solicitation prevented vendors from proposing two products that could be combined into a single device.
Sierra7, Inc; V3Gate, LLC, GAO B-421109 et al.
Background
The Department of Veterans Affairs posted an RFQ for personal computers. The VA planned to make two awards. Ten vendors submitted quotations. The VA selected the two lowest-priced quotations from AATD, LLC and Minburn Technology Group. Two disappointed vendors, Sierra7 and V3Gate, protested.
Analysis
Technical Specifications
The RFQ required an all-in-one desktop computer. Sierra7 and V3Gate argued AATD had not complied with this requirement. The protesters alleged AATD had proposed a Lenovo computer that was two separate products—a monitor and computer—not an all-in-one device.
GAO found the VA reasonably accepted AATD’s proposed computer. The device was within the RFQ’s dimensional limits and complied with all stated specifications. What’s more, the Lenovo device AATD offered could be integrated into a single unit. Nothing in the RFQ prevent vendors rom proposing multiple devices that could be integrated into a single computer.
Telecommunications Regulations
The RFQ included FAR 52.204-25, which prohibits agencies form contracting for telecommunications equipment linked to the Chinese government. V3Gate alleged Lenovo had a well-known connection to the Chinese government. AATD had proposed Lenovo equipment. V3Gate said the VA should have investigated further.
GAO found the argument meritless. Unless an agency no information indicating a vendor will not to comply with requirements, the agency can reasonably rely on the vendors’ representation of compliance. Here, other than V3Gate’s innuendo, there were no concrete indications AATD was providing prohibited equipment. The VA reasonably relied on AATD’s representations that it was not providing prohibited equipment.
Improper Exchanges
The RFQ initially required dual wireless antennas. After receiving quotations, the VA asked AATD to clarify whether it was proposing dual antennas. But after issuing the clarification the VA concluded the dual antenna requirement was too restrictive. The agency amended the solicitation to change the requirement. The protesters contended that instead of amending the RFQ, the VA should have rejected AATD’s quotation. By amending, they argued, the VA had effectively waived a requirement for AATD.
GAO wasn’t bothered by the amendment. Agencies may amend a solicitation after the closing date. The record showed the VA amended to remove a restrictive requirement to make the procurement as competitive as possible. The amendment did not improperly waive a requirement for AATD. Rather, all vendors were free to propose a system without dual wireless antennas.
Sierra7 is represented by Thomas K. David, Kenneth D. Brody, and Katherine A. David of David Brody & Dondershire, LLP. V3Gate is represented by Jonathan T. Williams, Katherine B. Burrows, Kevin T. Barnett, and Patrick T. Rothwell of PilieroMazza PLLC. Intervenor Minburn Technology is represented by Gary J. Campbell, Miles A McCann and Joshuah Turner of Perkins Coie LLP. Intervenor AATD is represented by Daniel R. Forman and William B. O’Reilly of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by Mellany Alio and Reza Behinia of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Kasia Dourney and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
