United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Encompass Group LLC 

File: B-310940.3 

Date: March 17, 2009 

H. K. Tyler Jr. for the protester. 

David G. Fagan, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. 

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Agency properly issued delivery order under a General Services Administration 

Federal Supply Schedule contract for mattresses to vendor offering higher priced 

mattresses which the agency reasonably determined were so superior to the lower 

priced mattresses offered by the protester as to justify the associated cost premium. 

DECISION 

Encompass Group LLC of Chicago, Illinois, protests the Department of Veterans 

Affairs’ issuance of a delivery order to Sizewise Rentals, LLC of Kansas City, 

Missouri, under that firm’s General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Supply 

Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA-260-07-

RQ-0129, for therapeutic hospital mattresses and mattress pumps. Encompass 

argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposed mattress. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFQ sought quotations from firms holding FSS contracts for therapeutic 

hospital mattresses and pumps. The RFQ required that vendors provide “descriptive 

literature and/or brochure information of the mattress specifications and other 

characteristics specified in the description.” RFQ at 3. The RFQ, as amended, 

provided for the issuance of an order to the vendor whose quotation was determined 

to represent the best value to the government, with quotations to be evaluated on the 

basis of the following equally weighted factors: technical, past performance and 

price. The technical factor consisted of six equally weighted subfactors: ease of use, 

pressure management, stability and reliability, comfort, warranty, and delivery. 
Under the pressure management subfactor, the RFQ stated: 

Perimeter foam has indentation load deflection edge support (Foam 

firmness) of 30 and over: The offeror shall provide literature and 

written documentation on company letterhead to support this factor. 

Literature and written documentation must directly address and 

support this factor.1

RFP amend. 1, at 3. One of the three criteria stated with regard to the ease of 

use subfactor was “[h]andles on side for lifting and moving.”2

 Id. at 2. 

Vendors were also required to bring onsite one sample of its proposed 

mattress for a 1-day evaluation period. Id. at 3. 

Five vendors submitted quotations. Encompass’s quotation proposed the 

lowest price and received the third highest technical score. Encompass’s 

lower technical score was based upon the evaluation of its quotation and 

sample mattress. The evaluators found that Encompass’s mattress’s 

perimeter firmness “felt ‘unstable’ [and the] edge [was] ‘mushy’” with no 

literature included in the quotation that showed the indentation load 

deflection of the proposed mattress, and that its proposed mattress did not 

have side handles. Agency Report (AR), exh. 9, Technical Evaluation, at 4. 

Sizewise submitted the third lowest price and received the highest technical 

score. In contrast, the mattress to be provided by Sizewise “met all our 

requirements mostly in an exemplary way.” Id. at 2. The past performance of 

both offerors was determined to be excellent.3

 

The agency made a tradeoff analysis of the quotations and determined that 

Sizewise’s quotation represented the best value to the government. In so 

doing, the agency compared Sizewise’s proposed mattress to Encompass’s 

proposed mattress, and determined that Sizemore’s proposed mattress was 

excellent in almost all respects, and represented a better value than 

Encompass’s lower priced quotation, given the problems found with respect 

 

1

 This was one of two criteria listed with regard to this subfactor. 

2

 The side handles were “mattress preferred specifications.” RFQ at 4. 

3

 In a previous protest, Encompass complained among other things about the past 

performance evaluation. In reviewing the record, our Office found no 

documentation supporting the past performance evaluation and in an alternate 

dispute resolution conference the GAO attorney advised the parties of this fact. The 

agency then took the corrective action of sending out questionnaires to the past 

performance references listed in the vendors’ quotations and evaluating the 

responses. Based on this evaluation, the agency rated both Encompass’s and 

Sizemore’s past performance as excellent. 

Page 2 B-310940.3 
to Encompass’s proposed mattress, including the failure to include side 

handles and the “poor” perimeter firmness. The order was placed with 

Sizewise and this protest followed. 

Encompass argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposed mattress and 

unreasonably placed the order for Sizemore’s higher priced mattress. 

In the context of an RFQ, where an agency solicits FSS vendors responses and uses 

an evaluation approach similar to that used in FAR Part 15 negotiated procurements, 

our Office will review the agency’s actions to ensure that the evaluation of vendors’ 

submissions was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 

Advanced Tech. Sys., Inc., B-298854; B-298854.2, Dec. 29, 2006, 2007 CPD ¶ 22 at 8. A 

protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment or its belief that its 

quotation deserved a higher technical rating is not sufficient to establish that the 

agency acted unreasonably. Id. at 8-9. 

Encompass complains that the agency improperly evaluated its mattress’s perimeter 

firmness as “poor.” As indicated above, in evaluating the perimeter firmness of 

Encompass’s mattress the agency noted that there was “[n]o literature provided re 

[initial load deflection], and [the evaluators] ‘didn’t sense any firmness at [the] edge’” 

of the sample mattress provided. AR, exh. 9, Technical Evaluation, at 4. The agency 

noted that the firmness of the perimeter of the mattress was important because 

“[o]ur patient population is vulnerable to falls since many of them have mobility 

problems associated with aging or medical conditions such as spinal cord injuries. 

The perimeter firmness of the mattress is important in reducing the risk of patients 

slipping or falling since a firm mattress perimeter provides more stability as they 

enter and exit the beds.” AR, exh. 18, Agency Letter to Encompass (Dec. 30, 2008), 

at 2. Because Encompass failed to provide the required documentation to support 

this subfactor and the evaluators found that the perimeter of its proposed mattress 

appeared “mushy,” we have no reason to question the agency’s evaluation of this 

subfactor. 

Encompass also complains that it should not have been downgraded because its 

proposed mattress lacked side handles. Encompass primary argument in support of 

this contention was that Sizewise’s mattress with handles was not listed on its FSS 

contract. However, the agency has provided evidence and Encompass now 

concedes that Sizewise’s proposed mattress is on its FSS contract. Agency E-Mail to 

GAO (Feb. 19, 2009), attach.; Encompass Letter to GAO (Feb. 24, 2009). Encompass 

nevertheless argues that handles are ordinarily not provided “for apparent safety 

reasons,” but that its quotation indicated that it would “provide handles if, after 

training clinical personnel [it was determined] that handles were a requirement.” 

Protester’s Comments at 3. However, as the agency advised Encompass, “[t]he lack 

of handles can increase . . . injuries [to] our staff when they need to reposition or 

turn mattresses.” AR, exh. 18, Agency Letter to Encompass (Sept. 27, 2008), at 1. 

Given that Encompass did not unequivocally offer the side handles in its quotation 

Page 3 B-310940.3 
Page 4 B-310940.3 

notwithstanding the solicitation’s expressed preference for this feature, the agency 

could reasonably downgrade its proposal under this subfactor. 

Encompass finally contends that the agency failed to produce documentation that 

fully supported its technical evaluation of the mattress proposed by Sizewise or of 

the past performance evaluation. Inasmuch as no protective order was issued in this 

case because the protester was not represented by counsel, we reviewed, in camera, 

the agency’s documentation regarding the evaluation of Sizewise’s quotation, which 

contained material that was protected by the agency, and the other evaluation 

documentation in the file, and have found that this documentation reasonably 

supports the agency’s evaluation conclusions.4

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

 

 

 

 

 

4

 Encompass alleges that there were improper discussions between agency personnel 

and Sizewise in October 2008. The agency denies that any such discussions took 

place. Sizewise now admits that it has no evidence to support this contention, which 

we will not consider further.