United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: ADM International, Inc. 

File: B-405854

Date: January 6, 2012

John J. Bikus, ADM International, Inc., for the protester.

Gregory Harding, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Under brand name or equal solicitation, protester’s quotation was properly rejected 

where the protester failed to demonstrate that its product satisfied the salient 

characteristics and other requirements set forth in the solicitation. 

DECISION

ADM International, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, protests the issuance of an order to 

Shaw Industries, Inc., of Dalton, Georgia, by the Department of the Air Force, under 

request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA5205-11-Q-HN12, a brand name or equal 

procurement for carpet with backing and adhesive. 

We deny the protest. 

The Air Force issued the RFQ on August 3, 2011, to procure carpet with backing and 

adhesive for regular maintenance and repair of military family housing at Misawa Air 

Base, Japan. Seven vendors submitted quotations in response to the RFQ. 

Following an initial review on September 2, the Air Force determined that none of 

the quotations fully met the RFQ’s information submission requirements. As a result, 

the Air Force decided to amend the RFQ to require vendors to submit manufacturer 

data verifying the features of their carpets, and to submit laboratory-issued, or 

manufacturer-signed, test certificates verifying various test results for the vendors’ 

products. 

On September 7, the Air Force issued the RFQ amendment to the seven original 

vendors. The amendment required vendors to submit revised quotations including: 

(1) verification of carpet, backing, and adhesive features; (2) sample carpet with 
Page 2 B-405854 

backing; (3) Material Safety Data Sheet for adhesive; and (4) test pass certificates for 

flammability, flooring radiant panel test, and electrostatic propensity. Agency 

Report (AR), Tab 7, at 4. The amendment advised as follows: 

The specifications information shall be the manufacturer’s issued 

catalog data or signed features, and each of the test pass shall be 

certified by the laboratory or signed by the manufacturer. [An] offer 

not meeting the solicitation requirement, or not providing any of the 

required information demonstrating conformance with the 

solicitation requirement, will not be considered for award. 

Id. The amendment also reiterated that all three of the “listed test pass requirements 

are mandatory, and offered [items] with any failure to comply [with] the test pass 

requirement will not be considered for award.” Id. at 10. 

Six of the seven initial vendors, including ADM, submitted timely quotations in 

response to the amended RFQ. The Air Force completed its review of the revised 

quotations on September 19. As relevant, the Air Force determined that ADM did not 

submit required dimensional or density information for the carpeting and backing 

foam, a test pass certificate for flooring radiant panel, or a laboratory-certified or 

manufacturer-signed electrostatic propensity test pass certificate. AR, Tab 8, at 1-2. 

Accordingly, the Air Force concluded that ADM’s quotation was ineligible for award. 

The Air Force issued the delivery order to Shaw on September 22. This protest 

followed. 

ADM argues that its quotation was lower-priced than Shaw’s quotation and should 

have been selected for the delivery order. However, ADM does not dispute that its 

revised quotation failed to include the information required by the RFQ. Instead, 

ADM argues that the required density information was included in its initial 

quotation and had not changed, that flooring radiant panel testing should not have 

been required because the brand name product did not carry a passing test 

certificate, and that its electrostatic test certificate was unsigned because the 

manufacturer “does not own the data generated by testing labs.” Protest at 2. We 

conclude that the Air Force reasonably, and consistent with the terms of the 

solicitation, found AMD’s quotation to be incomplete, and unacceptable. 

When reviewing a protest against the propriety of an evaluation, it is not our function 

to independently evaluate quotations and substitute our judgment for that of the 

contracting activity. Rather, we will review an evaluation to ensure that it was 

reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and 

applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Neopost USA Inc., B-404195, 

B-404195.2, Jan. 19, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 35 at 4; AlliedBarton Sec. Servs. LLC, B-299978 

et al., Oct. 9, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 186 at 6. 
Page 3 B-405854 

Regarding the agency’s evaluation of dimensional and density information provided 

by the protester, the RFQ required vendors to quote a product with “[t]otal carpet 

thickness including backing: Within 0.68 thru 0.75 [inches].” AR, Tab 7, at 5. The 

RFQ also required a carpet density of “[m]ore than 3,000 ozs/yd3,” and a backing 

density of “18 lbs. per cubic foot.” Id. In its revised quotation, ADM indicated that it 

would provide a carpet and backing with a total thickness of “MAXIMUM .75.” Id. 

ADM did not indicate a minimum thickness, or a density for its offered carpet or 

backing. The agency concluded that ADM quotation did not demonstrate 

compliance with the RFQ’s requirements, where it failed to specify a minimum 

thickness of at least .68 inches, and failed to provide density information. 

As stated above, ADM argues that its revised quotation should not have been found 

unacceptable for failure to provide required information in its revised quotation

because the missing information was provided in its initial quotation, and its offered

product had not changed. We disagree. First, where an agency has amended an RFQ 

and solicited revised quotations, there is no basis for an agency to rely on 

information submitted in an initial quotation submitted in response to the initial RFQ 

to demonstrate compliance with the amended RFQ. Second, while ADM did submit 

a specific thickness measurement and carpet density information in its initial 

quotation, this information was not “the manufacturer’s issued catalog data or signed 

features,” as required by the amended RFQ.1

 In response to the amended RFQ, 

requiring verified data, ADM submitted only a maximum thickness dimension, and 

manufacturer’s catalog data indicating average density as “N/A.” Given ADM’s 

failure to provide the required information in its revised quotation, we see nothing 

unreasonable in the agency’s conclusion that ADM’s quotation was unacceptable. 

With regard to ADM’s arguments that the flooring radiant panel and electrostatic 

propensity test certificates should not have been required, we find these arguments 

untimely. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission 

of protests. They specifically require that a protest based upon alleged improprieties 

in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of initial

quotations be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2010). This rule includes 

challenges to alleged improprieties that do not exist in the initial solicitation but 

which are subsequently incorporated into it; in such cases, the solicitation must be 

protested not later than the next closing time for receipt of quotations following the 

incorporation. Id.; see Cessna Aircraft Co.

 1

We also note that while carpet density was stated in ADM’s initial quotation, it is 

not apparent that ADM addressed backing density in any submission to the agency. 

, B-261953.5, Feb. 5, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 132 

at 16. Here, the requirement to submit these test certificates was clearly set forth in 

the amended RFQ, and the amended RFQ further cautioned offerors that “listed test 

pass requirements are mandatory, and offered [items] with any failure to comply 
Page 4 B-405854 

[with] the test pass requirement will not be considered for award.” AR, Tab 7, at 10. 

To the extent that ADM disagreed with these amended RFQ requirements, ADM was 

required to file its protest prior to the closing time of the amended RFQ.

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel