Protest challenging the evaluation of proposals for a brand name or equal product is denied. The solicitation sought a brand name or equal paper shredder that could handle a maximum capacity of 13-20 pages. The protester argued that this requirement established a ceiling such that any shredder that could handle less than 13-20 pages satisfied the requirement. GAO found this argument illogical. Under the protester’s reading any amount below the 13 pages, even one page could satisfy the requirement. Contrary to the protester, GAO reasoned the requirement established a floor, a minimum shredding capacity, not a ceiling.
The Department of Veterans Affairs issued an RFQ seeking “brand name or equal” paper shredders. Specifically, the VA sough shredders that were brand name or equal to the Datastroyer 1628 High Security Shredder. To be equal to the Datastroyer, a proposed shredder had to have “a maximum sheet capacity between 13 and 20 pages.”
Sarandrea Associates Group submitted a quote in response to the RFQ. Sarandrea proposed a shredder with a capacity between 9 and 11 pages. The VA found Sarandrea’s proposal technically unacceptable and thus made award to another company, BWhit Infrastructure Solutions. Sarandrea protested.
Sarandrea argued that maximum sheet capacity of 13-20 pages was a ceiling—that is, a proposed machine could not exceed the 13 to 20 page limit. Because its shredders’ 9 to 11 page limit was included within the 13-20 ceiling, it was acceptable.
GAO found this interpretation nonsensical. Essentially, Sarandrea argued that the solicitation established no minimum requirement. Indeed, GAO noted, under Sarandrea’s interpretation, a shredding capacity of only one page would have satisfied the requirement. But GAO reasoned that this interpretation conflicted with the language of the solicitation, which stated that the capacity had to be “between 13-20 pages.” Saranadrea’s interpretation rendered the word “between” meaningless. A shredder with a capacity of more than 13 pages would go beyond the solicitation’s requirements. Likewise, a shredder that exceeded 20 pages would be unacceptable under the solicitation. Contrary to Sarandrea’s interpretation, a solicitation that seeks an item equal to a name brand, establishes a minimum requirements for what it is acceptable in an alternate product.
Sarandrea also challenged the evaluation of BWhit’s proposal. BWhit actually proposed the brand name shredder, the Datastroyer. But Sarandrea contended that the brand name shredder did not meet the salient characteristics identified in the solicitation. But GAO found that a contention that the brand name product does not meet the solicitation requirement is effectively an argument that the solicitation is defective. A challenge to the terms of a solicitation must be filed before the proposal deadline. Because Sarandrea only raised this argument after award, it was untimely.
Sarandrea is represented by Edward J. Tolchin of Offit Kurman P.A. The agency is represented by Francis P. Gainer of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Lillian I. Ofili, Louis A. Chiarella and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.