Request for Reconsideration

A firm requested reconsideration of a GAO decision in which the firm's protest against a purchase of computer equipment by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was denied. The purchase was the exercise of an option under an existing lease contract. The awardee submitted a special purchase offer to EPA. After evaluating the offer, EPA determined that approximately $4,000,000 could be saved by the acceptance of the offer. EPA requested a delegation of procurement authority (DPA) from the General Services Administration to purchase the equipment. The DPA was granted, but it required EPA to solicit at least six specified firms in order to determine whether the offer represented the lowest cost to the Government. Two offers, including the protester's, were received and the equipment proposed in each was found technically acceptable. Of the two offers, the protester's offer was lowest. However, the protester's price, as computed by the agency, was found to be higher than that of the proposed awardee; thus, the contract was given to the awardee. The protester contended that EPA improperly added a factor in excess of $1 million which had not been listed in the solicitation as an evaluation factor. The protest was denied. The awardee's reduced option price was lower than the protester's price even without the $1 million evaluation factor. The protester contended that no exercisable option existed in the contract which included all of the computer equipment purchased by EPA. It contended that some of the equipment purchased was neither installed nor on continuous rental and therefore was not properly the subject of an exercisable purchase option. The protester argued that EPA conducted a competitive procurement which included an unsolicited proposal from the awardee; thus, the reduction offered by the awardee, while the protester's proposal was being evaluated, was a late revision to the awardee's initial offer and should not have been considered. The record showed that the contracting parties regarded the equipment as subject to the contract's purchase option. GAO found no impropriety in the agency's consideration of the awardee's special offer since the awardee had not been given the opportunity to participate in the market test. It would be unfair to permit the incumbent to participate in the market test and then, after the competition had closed, offer further price reductions. Accordingly, the prior decision was affirmed.