Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: CSI GmbH 

File: B-400434 

Date: October 22, 2008 

Alexander Stoebe and Patric E. Colp, for the protester. 

Maj. Daniel A. Woolverton, Department of the Army, for the agency. 

Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST 

Protest alleging that vendor’s products did not meet the solicitation requirements is 

denied where vendor’s quotation provided evidence of compliance upon which the 

agency could reasonably rely. 

DECISION 

CSI GmbH protests the award of a contract to Mathy & Company 

Verpacksgungtechnik GmbH, under request for quotations (RFQ)1 No. W912PE-08-T0141, issued by the U.S. Army Contracting Command, Europe, for four types of 

plastic film for sealing meat. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFQ provided for the award of a contract to the vendor submitting the quotation 

determined to represent the best value to the government based upon the factors of 

product compliance, past performance, and price. RFQ at 11. The solicitation 

informed vendors that product compliance was a pass/fail factor that would be 

evaluated by determining “whether the products proposed meet (or exceed) the 

minimum requirements listed in the solicitation.” Id. Offerors were required to 

provide with their quotations 

 

1

 We recognize that this protest involves an RFQ; however, the agency throughout its 

procurement record makes reference to the award of a contract. We have retained 

the language used by the agency in some instances for consistency with the 

underlying record. 
A technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to

evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. This 

may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary. 

RFQ at 8, 11. Product samples were not required and product testing was not part of

the product compliance evaluation. 

The agency received quotations from three vendors. CSI’s and Mathy’s quotations

were found to pass the product compliance factor,2

 and both had equal past

performance ratings. Thus, price became the determinative factor for award, and the

contracting officer decided that Mathy’s lower priced quotation provided the best

value to the government and made award to that firm. Agency Report (AR) at 4. 

CSI protests that Mathy’s film products are not compliant with the statement of work 

requirements. 

In reviewing protests of agency evaluations, we will not reevaluate proposals; rather, 

we will review the record to ensure that the evaluation and source selection decision

were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and with

procurement statutes and regulations. Matrix Gen., Inc., B-282192, June 10, 1999, 

99-1 CPD ¶ 108 at 3. 

Based on our review of the record, we find that the agency’s evaluation was in 

accordance with the terms of the solicitation and that the award decision was 

reasonable. Mathy’s quotation included a chart that specifically indicated that each 

of its film products would comply with the various statement of work requirements. 

AR, Tab 6, Mathy’s Quotation, at 4. While CSI argues that its own independent tests

of Mathy’s products show that they do not meet the statement of work 

specifications, we find no basis on this record why the agency could not accept the 

evidence provided by Mathy with its quotation to determine that Mathy’s offered 

products were acceptable. In any case, as noted by the agency, we agree that the 

test results provided by CSI suggesting noncompliance are not clearly documented. 

In addition, while CSI asserts that it tested Mathy film samples provided under a 

prior contract that it obtained from the agency, the agency asserts that it provided 

CSI with the film samples of several manufacturers with no identification of the 

manufacturer of the film sample provided. 

 2

 Initially, CSI’s product compliance was rated as “FAIL” by the technical evaluation 

panel because CSI did not provide the required documentation to prove that its

vacuum film would meet or exceed the specifications. Nonetheless, the evaluators 

gave CSI a rating of “PASS” after examining a prior submission by CSI. AR at 3-4. 

Page 2 B-400434 
The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 3 B-400434