Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Technically Acceptability
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: An agency may accept a quotation’s representations regarding compliance with a solicitation requirement where there is no significant countervailing evidence reasonably known to agency evaluators that should create doubt that the vendor will or can comply with the requirement.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Neopost USA Inc. protests the award of a contract pursuant to a request for quotations (RFQ), issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for 240 digital mail meter systems and related support.
Neopost contends that the agency should have rejected the awardee’s proposal as technically unacceptable. According to Neopost, the proposed mailing system does not offer “mixed mail processing,” which Neopost asserts that the solicitation required by virtue of the provision for “a mixed size feeder that eliminates the needed to manually sort mail by size.”
GAO states that, where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to FSS contractors under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition, it will review the record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
Based on a review of the record, GAO finds that the agency reasonably concluded that the awardee’s proposal agreed without exception to meet the solicitation requirement in question. The record reflects that the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) reviewed the awardee’s proposal and determined it to be technically acceptable because it “properly answered and understood the requirements listed in the [SOW].” The record further reflects that the awardee’s proposal expressly stated that the proposed mailing system “fully complies” with the solicitation provision referenced by Neopost.
GAO further states that an agency may accept a quotation’s representations regarding compliance with a solicitation requirement where there is no significant countervailing evidence reasonably known to agency evaluators that should create doubt that the vendor will or can comply with the requirement. The record does not indicate that there was any countervailing evidence known to the agency that should have created doubt regarding the awardee’s intent and capability to meet the requirement at issue. The protest is denied.