ATI Systems

Decision

Matter of: ATI Systems

File: B-410602

Date: January 12, 2015

DIGEST

Protest challenging the agency’s rejection of the protester’s quotation as technically unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably found that the protester failed to adequately demonstrate its compliance with the solicitation’s minimum requirements.

ATI Systems, of Boston, Massachusetts, protests the award of a purchase order to Trident Technical Solutions, LLC, (TTS), of St. Petersburg, Florida, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. F1C6RH4220A003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a mobile mass notification system at Anderson Air Force Base in Guam. The protester challenges the agency’s rejection of its quotation as technically unacceptable.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ was issued on September 22, 2014, as a total small business set-aside under the streamlined procedures established at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12.6 for the evaluation and acquisition of commercial items.[1] RFQ (Sept. 22, 2014) at 1. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price purchase order to the vendor submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation. Id. at 2. The RFQ defined technical acceptability as a quotation that “clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Id. at 3. The solicitation included a list of requirements as an attachment to the solicitation. Id. at attach., Requirements List. As relevant here, one such requirement was for the vendor’s mass notification system to have the ability to reach a range of 1.5‑2 miles. Id. at 2.

The agency received four quotes by the solicitation’s September 26 closing date. Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 3. The agency initially identified ATI’s quotation as the lowest-priced, but the Air Force rejected the quotation as technically unacceptable because it failed to include any information to demonstrate that its system would meet the 1.5-2 mile range requirement. CO Statement at 6. The Air Force made award to Trident as the next lowest-priced quotation on September 30.[2] Id. ATI filed the current protest on October 7.

DISCUSSION

ATI contends that it should have received award because it submitted the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable quotation in response to the RFQ. Protest at 1-2. The protester argues that the Air Force improperly evaluated its quotation because ATI did not take exception to the RFQ’s minimum requirements. Id. at 2.

In reviewing an agency’s evaluation, we will not reevaluate quotations, but will examine the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Beckman Coulter, Inc., B-405452, Nov. 4, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 231 at 5. It is a vendor’s burden to submit an adequately written quotation, and the vendor’s disagreement with an unfavorable rating does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. Future Technologies Consulting Group, Inc.. B-409867, Aug. 13, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ __. Further, an offeror has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the merits of its quotation, including providing all information that was requested to demonstrate its capabilities and compliance with solicitation requirements. Id. Where a quotation omits, inadequately addresses, or fails to clearly convey required information, the vendor runs the risk of an adverse agency evaluation. Id. Here, we find that ATI has furnished no basis to question the agency’s determination that its quotation was unacceptable.

ATI concedes that it did not directly address each of the minimum requirements listed in the RFQ but argues that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable because the quotation contained a blanket statement of compliance. ATI Comments at 1. In this regard, ATI’s quotation contained the following language, “[w]e believe our system will not only exceed your requirements but will also provide you with the economic value in terms of reliability and system performance.” Protest at 2 citing ATI Quotation, at 1.

On this record, we have no basis to question the agency’s rejection of ATI’s quotation as technically unacceptable. Brandt Group, Inc., B-409104, Jan. 16, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 33 at 2 (offeror is responsible for including sufficient information to establish compliance with solicitation requirements, and blanket statements of compliance are insufficient to meet this obligation). While the protester disagrees, it has not provided a basis for us to overturn the agency’s reasonable evaluation.

The protest is denied.[3]

Susan A. Poling
General Counsel