United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Hi-Tech Bed Systems Corporation

File: B-406925

Date: September 27, 2012

Philip A. Nicholas, Esq., Nicholas & Tangeman, LLC, for the protester.

Sean D. Forbes, Esq., and Bryant S. Banes, Esq., Neel, Hooper & Banes, P.C., for 

AVTEQ Inc., an intervenor.

C. Clay Weisenberger, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the 

agency.

Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency conducting competition among Federal Supply Schedule 

vendors should have rejected successful vendor’s quotation because, although the 

vendor’s revised quotation complied with solicitation requirements, the vendor’s 

initial quotation did not, is denied where agency evaluation was reasonable and 

consistent with solicitation. 

DECISION

Hi-Tech Bed Systems Corporation, of Wheatland, Wyoming, a small business, 

protests the issuance of three Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) orders to AVTEQ, 

Inc., of Dallas, Texas, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under 

request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912DY-11-T-0046 to supply furniture and 

accessories, and associated installation services, for dormitory barracks for three 

buildings at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Hi-Tech argues that AVTEQ’s quoted 

products failed to meet RFQ requirements. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND

The Corps issued the RFQ on January 6, 2012, seeking quotations from firms 

holding FSS contracts under the furniture schedule (Schedule 71), to supply and 

install dormitory furniture (rack sleeper beds, mattresses, and wardrobes) and 

appliances (refrigerator/freezers, televisions, ice makers, microwave ovens, and 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; 

we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety.
Page 2 B-406925

clothes washers and dryers). RFQ attach. 1, price schedule, at 1-2; attach. 2,1

product specifications, at 1-5. The RFQ “strongly encouraged” firms to submit 

quotations for items on their FSS contracts, but permitted submission of nonschedule items up to a value of $3,000 per item2

The RFQ required vendors to show that their beds and wardrobes met GSA testing 

requirements, and were listed on the GSA Advantage web site, as follows:

and $25,000 per order. RFQ at 5-

6.

Cut sheets required for items a. [the rack storage sleeper (bed unit)] 

and b. [the wardrobe] must indicate certified current GSA testing and 

approval and listing on GSA Advantage. 

RFQ attach. 2, product specifications, at 2. 

On January 19, the Corps issued amendment 1 to the RFQ, which extended the 

quotation due date by 10 days, to January 27, and revised the product 

specifications, as follows:

Cut sheets required for items a. and b. must indicate certified current 

GSA testing and approval and listing on GSA Advantage Schedule 

Contract. 

RFQ amend. 2 at 2 (struck text in original). 

The RFQ stated that quotations would be evaluated for technical acceptability, and 

that a vendor would be selected from among those that submitted acceptable 

quotations based on three factors, in descending order of significance: price, 

“furniture install completion,” and past performance. RFQ at 7-8. 

The Corps received three quotations from AVTEQ, Hi-Tech, and a third firm.3

 1 Although the RFQ provided separate product specifications for each of the three 

buildings, the provisions at issue in this protest were identical, thus our citation is 

generally to all three, and does not differentiate among them. 

 On 

May 1, the evaluators reported to the contracting officer that all three quotations 

were unacceptable. Hi-Tech’s quotation was viewed as unacceptable because the 

evaluators concluded that, among other things, it did not show that the offered bed 

had met the testing requirements, its wardrobe did not conform to dimensions 

specified in the RFQ, and neither the bed nor the wardrobe appeared to be on the 

2 The RFQ permitted non-schedule items over $3,000 per item only if the offeror 

submitted three competitive price quotations as support. RFQ at 6. 

3 Two other firms were invited to submit quotations, but declined. 
Page 3 B-406925

firm’s FSS contract. AR, Tab 5, Technical Evaluation, at 1, 3 (initial technical 

evaluation). AVTEQ’s quotation was viewed as unacceptable because the firm did 

not supply its teaming agreement with the supplier of its bed and wardrobe, the 

offered bed did not match the model number in the firm’s GSA contract, and the 

wardrobe did not meet the required dimensions. Id. 

The Corps informed both vendors of the deficiencies in their respective quotations, 

and requested revised quotations by May 3. AVTEQ and Hi-Tech timely submitted 

revised quotations. As relevant to the protest, the evaluators found that AVTEQ’s 

revised quotation submitted a corrected model number for the bed, a revised GSA 

product catalog for AVTEQ’s teaming partner which listed the bed and wardrobe, 

and the GSA Bed Testing Approval document.4

After reviewing the revised quotations, the evaluators found both AVTEQ’s and 

Hi-Tech’s quotations to be acceptable.

 Id. 

5

 AR, Tab 5, Technical Evaluation, at 4 

(evaluation of revised quotations). The evaluators then calculated an evaluated 

price for both firms (including shipping and storage costs), and evaluated both 

vendors under the completion time and past performance factors. The evaluation 

results were as follows: 

Vendor Evaluated Price Installation Time Past Performance

AVTEQ $1.20 million 9 weeks Outstanding

Hi-Tech $1.36 million 4 weeks Above Average

AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision, at 6.6

The contracting officer reviewed the evaluation, and determined that AVTEQ’s price 

advantage outweighed the faster installation time proposed by Hi-Tech. Although 

AVTEQ’s past performance was evaluated as superior to Hi-Tech’s, the contracting 

officer concluded that AVTEQ’s advantage in this regard was minor and did not 

materially affect his source selection judgment. Id. Accordingly, the contracting 

officer selected AVTEQ as the successful vendor. Upon receiving notice of the 

source selection, Hi-Tech filed this protest. 

 4 Included with AVTEQ’s revised quotation was a “GSA Testing Approval” document, 

stating that the quoted bed had been approved, which referenced the product listing 

in an attached GSA Catalog “dated January 2010 (corrected 3/12/12).” AR, Tab 7, 

AVTEQ Revised Quotation, at cut sheets 000009 & 000010.

5 Although the third firm also submitted a revised quotation, it was evaluated as 

unacceptable once again, and was not further considered. 

6 Our decision here consolidates separate tables in the agency record and rounds 

the firms’ evaluated prices. 
Page 4 B-406925

ANALYSIS

Hi-Tech raised a number of allegations in its initial protest. In response to a 

dismissal request filed jointly by AVTEQ and the Corps,7

The Corps maintains, and we agree, that vendors’ final quotations were not limited 

to products that met the testing and listing requirements on January 27, the due date 

for the initial quotations. The Corps notes that, after determining that all three of the 

initial quotations were unacceptable, the agency advised each vendor of its 

quotation’s unacceptability, and requested revised quotations. All vendors, 

including Hi-Tech, were thus treated equally by receiving the same opportunity 

revise their quotations; the vendors were not prohibited from offering products that 

differed from their initial quotations. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 6; AR at 7. 

the protester narrowed its 

complaints to a single issue: that to be technically compliant with the RFQ 

requirements a vendor’s products had to meet GSA testing standards and be listed 

on GSA Advantage on January 27, 2012 (the date that initial quotations were due, 

pursuant to RFQ amendment 1). Protester’s Dismissal Response at 2-3. Hi-Tech 

argued that AVTEQ’s beds did not meet those requirements on January 27, and, 

therefore, the Corps should have deemed AVTEQ’s final quotation unacceptable. 

Id. 

Where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to GSA FSS contractors under Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition, we will review 

the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation is reasonable and consistent with 

the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. 

Digital Solutions, Inc., B-402067, Jan. 12, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 26 at 3-4; DEI 

Consulting, B-401258, July 13, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 151 at 2. When an agency 

announces its intention to order from an FSS vendor, all items quoted and ordered 

are required to be on the vendor's FSS contract at the time the order is issued. 

AINS, Inc., B-405902.3, May 31, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 180 at 8. 

Applying these principles to the procurement here, there was no requirement that, to 

be ultimately eligible for award, the items in AVTEQ’s initial quotation had to have 

been listed on its supplier’s schedule contract at the time initial quotations were 

submitted. Rather, the relevant date here, for an FSS order, is the date the order is 

issued. AINS, Inc., supra. Further, the terms of the RFQ at issue here did not 

impose such a requirement, nor did the RFQ otherwise restrict vendors from quoting 

different items in their revised quotations than those contained in their initial 

 7 Our Office denied the dismissal request because the narrowed protest issue 

required consideration of whether AVTEQ’s quotation complied with the terms of the 

RFQ. Fax from GAO to Parties, July 20, 2012, at 1. Nevertheless, by narrowing its 

protest to the single issue, Hi-Tech necessarily withdrew the remainder of its original 

protest issues. 
Page 5 B-406925

quotations. Thus, we see no basis to question the Corps’s evaluation of the revised 

quotation as acceptable because AVTEQ relied on a testing approval that 

referenced an FSS contract amendment for its supplier dated after the due date for 

initial quotations. 

Although Hi-Tech also argues that the product information in AVTEQ’s revised 

quotation does not provide “sufficient detail to show what product AVTEQ is required 

to provide,” Protester’s Comments at 4, Hi-Tech’s complaint provides no basis to 

sustain the protest. As described above, the revised quotation identified AVTEQ’s 

quoted bed model, provided evidence of successful testing of the quoted model, and 

included line drawings of the design of the quoted model, which the Corps found 

satisfactory in its final evaluation. AR, Tab 5, Technical Evaluations, at 4 (evaluation 

of revised quotations). Hi-Tech’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment 

regarding the sufficiency of the information AVTEQ submitted does not constitute a 

basis for sustaining the protest. TCBA Watson Rice, LLP, B-402086.6, B-402086.7, 

Sept. 8, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 229 at 7. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel