United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: J. Squared Inc., dba University Loft Company

File: B-407302

Date: December 17, 2012

Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, for the protester.

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

Dehler Manufacturing, Inc., an intervenor.

MAJ Melissa L. Wright and CPT John E. Buis, United States Marine Corps, for the 

agency.

Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency’s acceptance of a quotation that failed to conform to a material solicitation 

requirement is unreasonable; a technically unacceptable quotation may not form the 

basis for award.

DECISION

J. Squared Inc., dba University Loft Company (University Loft), of Greenfield, 

Indiana, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Dehler Manufacturing, Inc., 

of San Antonio, Texas, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. M67001-12-Q-0152, 

issued by the United States Marine Corps for barracks furniture. The protester 

argues that the agency improperly waived a material solicitation requirement for 

Dehler and improperly accepted Dehler’s nonconforming quotation for award.

We sustain the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFQ, issued to vendors holding Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts

under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, provided for the issuance of 

a purchase order for various types of furniture for Marine barracks at Camp Lejeune, 

North Carolina. RFQ at 2. Vendors were informed that the order would be issued 

on a lowest-priced, technically-acceptable basis to a vendor with a satisfactory 

performance record. Id. at 14. The RFQ stated that quotations would be evaluated 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to 

a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has 

been approved for public release.
Page 2 B-407302

first by price, after which the lowest-priced quotation would be evaluated for 

technical acceptability; once a technically acceptable quotation was identified, no 

further evaluation would be conducted. See id. Vendors were advised that all items 

quoted were required to appear on the offeror’s FSS schedule. Id. at 15.

As relevant here, vendors were required to quote prices for 288 metal beds, 

complying with the following specifications:

- Metal bed with bunk-able brackets

- Tool Free Hook Assembly metal bunk bed with under bed storage

- Bed Ends with Multiple Position pin settings.

Id. at 9, Contract Line Item No. (CLIN) 10. The RFQ also specified under-bed 

storage, overall dimensions, and materials, among other things. Id. The solicitation 

instructed vendors to provide drawings, product literature, pictures, and descriptions 

of all furniture items (including for the bunk beds), as well as the manufacturer’s 

name and part number, to ensure technical compliance. Id. at 15.

The Marine Corps received quotations from three vendors, including University Loft 

and Dehler. Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 1-2. Dehler’s quotation, priced 

at $634,054, was the lowest-priced quotation submitted. Id.; see Agency Report 

(AR), Tab F, Task Order Award Decision, Abstract, at 3. It was evaluated first, and 

found to be technically acceptable. See CO’s Statement at 2.

For CLIN 10, Dehler’s quotation reproduced the specifications for the bunk bed as 

they appeared in the solicitation, and then identified the firm’s FSS contract, its 

applicable blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the Navy, and the model number 

of the bunk bed it was offering. AR, Tab C, Dehler Quotation, at 3. In a narrative 

paragraph, Dehler described its bed, stating, among other things, that the bed ends 

would “allow for adjustment of height for versatile Assembly/positioning.” Id. It 

provided an “overall range of dimensions” that represented the bed as complying 

with the RFQ’s dimensions requirements. Id. Dehler’s quotation also included a 

one-page technical drawing that depicts front, side, and two-dimensional views of 

two bunk beds, stacked one atop the other, but the drawing does not depict the bed

frame’s assembly method. See id. at 6. Specifically, neither the drawing nor the 

narrative describes the method for attaching the bed’s side rails to the end boards 

in assembling the bed.1

 

1 At issue in this protest is how the bed’s side rails attach to the end boards to form 

the bed frame, and whether the method of attachment complies with the RFQ’s 

specification for a bed with a tool-free hook assembly. How the bunk beds attach to 

each other vertically is not at issue.

 Id. at 3, 6.
Page 3 B-407302

The agency determined that Dehler’s bunk bed met the required specifications and 

product type, and that Dehler’s quotation was technically acceptable.2 AR, Tab D, 

Technical Evaluation, at 5; CO’s Statement at 2. Because Dehler’s lower-priced 

quotation was found technically acceptable, no other quotations (including University 

Loft’s, which was the next low priced quotation) were evaluated for technical 

acceptability.3 See CO’s Statement at 2, citing RFQ at 14. The purchase order 

was issued to Dehler. See AR, Tab F, Task Order Award Decision, at 2. 

University Loft filed an agency-level protest with the Marine Corps, complaining that 

Dehler’s bed did not meet the RFQ’s specification for tool-free hook assembly and 

should have been found technically unacceptable. See Protest, exh. 6, University 

Loft Agency-level Protest, at 21-24. The protester argued that the beds offered 

on Dehler’s FSS contract must be assembled using nuts and bolts, rather than 

through a tool-free hook assembly. See id. The agency stayed performance of the 

purchase order pending the outcome of the agency-level protest. CO’s Statement 

at 3.

The Marine Corps denied University Loft’s protest, stating that its review of the bed 

quoted by Dehler proved that the bed fully complied with the RFQ’s requirements. 

AR, Tab H, Agency Protest Decision, at 1. In the protest decision, the contracting 

officer stated that he interpreted “a tool-free hook assembly” as meaning “connected 

and tightened by hand without the use of tools.” Id. The decision enclosed a 

diagram of Dehler’s bed, which Dehler had furnished at the request of the 

contracting officer during the agency-level protest, depicting a bed rail fastened to an 

end board with two nuts and bolts. Id., Encl. 2. The diagram separately depicts, and 

appears to suggest, three bolt options in that regard--a wing bolt, tee bolt, and spade 

bolt. See id. There is no hook shown on the diagram, and the contracting officer’s 

protest decision does not mention the word (or concept) of a hook assembly. See

id.; infra n.6

After denying the agency-level protest, the Marine Corps instructed Dehler to 

resume performance of the purchase order, and this protest followed. CO’s 

Statement at 3. The agency concluded that due to the passage of time, the 

protester was not entitled to another stay of performance. The Marine Corps 

 

2 The technical evaluation record provided in response to the protest consists of a 

copy of the CLINs as they appeared in the RFQ, a copy of the applicable pages from 

Dehler’s quotation, and an evaluation form with yes-or-no checkmarks to indicate 

whether the items quoted met the required specifications for product type, quantity, 

and acceptability. See AR, Tab D, Technical Evaluation, at 4-8. The evaluation 

sheet for Dehler’s bed is blank under the comments section. Id. at 5.

3 ULC asserts that it quoted a tool-free hook assembly bed that met the RFQ’s 

specifications. Protest at 6, 10.
Page 4 B-407302

states that it was not willing to further delay renovations and construction of 

barracks, which would have an impact on pre-deployment training, among other 

things. See Agency Email to GAO, Sept. 18, 2012; CO’s Statement at 2-3.

DISCUSSION

University Loft again protests the Marine Corps’ evaluation of Dehler’s quotation, 

arguing that Dehler’s bed does not meet the RFQ’s specification for a tool-free hook 

assembly and that the agency improperly relaxed a material requirement when it 

found the bed technically acceptable.4

 Protest at 6-9. The protester provides 

illustrations from various bed vendors and manufacturers, as well as copies of 

relevant patents, to support its argument that a hook assembly is an industry 

standard or commonly used term. Protester’s Comments at 3, exhs. A-G. 

According to University Loft, this term refers to a bed railing with curved metal 

protrusions on its ends that hook into the bed’s headboard and footboard without 

fasteners such as nuts and bolts. See Protest at 5-6. The protester points out that, 

in contrast, Dehler’s bedrails have no hooks, but must be fastened with a nut and 

bolt. Protest at 5. The protester asserts, therefore, that the agency relaxed the hook 

assembly specification for the awardee, and that it was improper to do so without 

amending the RFQ. Id. at 6-9.

The Marine Corps disputes that there is an industry standard for a tool-free hook 

assembly, and states that the technical evaluator and contracting officer relied on 

reason and common usage in determining the meaning of this term. AR at 3-4. 

According to the agency, a hook assembly can, in addition to the protester’s 

construction of the term, also describe a bed rail that, like Dehler’s, “catches on” or 

“hooks over” a protruding bolt. See id. The Marine Corps insists that the agency did 

not relax or waive the requirement for a tool-free hook assembly, and maintains that 

the agency reasonably found that Dehler’s bed met the specification. See id. at 5-6; 

Agency Response to GAO Interrogatory at 2.

Where, as here, an agency conducts a competition under FAR subpart 8.4, we 

will review the record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation is reasonable and 

consistent with the terms of the solicitation. CMI Mgmt., Inc., B-404645, Mar. 2, 

2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 66 at 4; GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, B-298102, B-298102.3, June 14, 

2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 96 at 6. In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s technical 

evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate the quotations; rather, we will examine the 

 

4 University Loft initially argued (including in its agency-level protest) that Dehler’s 

FSS contract did not include a tool-free hook assembly bed, contrary to FAR 

subpart 8.4 and the RFQ, but has essentially abandoned that argument, asking 

that the protest be decided on the issue of whether the quoted bed meets the 

requirement for a tool-free hook assembly. See Protester’s Comments at 1.
Page 5 B-407302

record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable 

and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws 

and regulations. Maybank Indus., LLC, B-403327, B-403327.2, Oct. 21, 2010, 2010 

CPD ¶ 249 at 5; OPTIMUS Corp., B-400777, Jan. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 33 at 4. 

Clearly stated technical requirements are considered material to the needs of the 

government, and a quote that fails to conform to material solicitation requirements 

is technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis for award. Carahsoft Tech. 

Corp., B-401169, B-401169.2, June 29, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 134 at 5. It is well 

established that a technically unacceptable proposal cannot be considered for 

award. Analytic Servs., Inc., B-405737, Dec. 28, 2011, 2012 CPD ¶ 16 at 13.

We find that the Marine Corps did not reasonably evaluate the technical acceptability 

of Dehler’s quotation in a manner consistent with the RFQ. The contemporaneous 

evaluation record does not evidence that the agency considered whether Dehler’s 

bed included a hook assembly.5 See AR, Tab D, Technical Evaluation, at 5. While 

we are mindful that where, as here, an agency places an order under a BPA, limited 

documentation of the source selection is permissible, the agency must at least 

provide a sufficient record to show that the source selection was reasonable. See, 

e.g., e-LYNXX Corp., B-292761, Dec. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 219 at 8. Here, as we 

discuss above, the record consists of the technical evaluator’s sheet with three 

checkmarks and no comments. AR, Tab D, Technical Evaluation, at 5. Moreover, 

as we also discuss above, Dehler’s quotation did not describe (and the quotation’s 

one-page technical drawing did not depict) its bed’s assembly method. AR, Tab C, 

Dehler Quotation, at 3, 6.

To the extent that the agency now purports to explain the basis for its evaluation 

and source selection decisions, arguing that Dehler’s quoted bed complied with the 

specifications, we find its explanations unpersuasive and unsupported by the 

contemporaneous evaluation record. The RFQ explicitly required that vendors’ bunk 

beds have a hook assembly. RFQ at 9. As the protester correctly points out, 

however, Dehler’s bed frame assembly simply does not include a curved “hook” as 

 

5 In fact, the record suggests that the agency did not consider whether the bed met 

the dimensional limits specified in the RFQ. Inexplicably, the evaluation record does 

not address a discrepancy in Dehler’s quotation between the dimensions of its bed 

as indicated on its technical drawing and the dimensions listed in the narrative 

description, even though both show some degree of noncompliance with the RFQ’s 

specifications. AR, Tab C, Dehler Quotation, at 3, 6. The narrative description 

indicates that Dehler’s bed was narrower, taller, and longer than the dimensional 

limits specified in the RFQ; while the technical drawing indicates that the bed was 

taller and longer in that regard. Compare id. with RFQ at 9.
Page 6 B-407302

that term is plainly understood.6 Further, we agree that the agency’s interpretation 

of the term “tool-free hook assembly” to include “where bed rails catch on a bolt” 

is unreasonable.7 See Carasoft, supra, at 4-5 (protest sustained where 

agency unreasonably found that awardee satisfied RFQ’s minimum technical 

specifications); see, e.g., Window Sys. Eng’g, B-222599, Aug. 27, 1986, 86-2 CPD 

¶ 230 at 3 (protest sustained where solicitation specifications may not have reflected 

agency’s need and protester’s interpretation of specification as requiring a different 

item is reasonable).

RECOMMENDATION

The agency reports that all of the required furniture, including the beds, has been 

delivered and that installation is complete with one exception not relevant here. 

Agency Email to GAO, Dec. 10, 2012. Under these circumstances, corrective action 

is not available. See Bosco Contracting, Inc., B-270366, Mar. 4, 1996, 96-1 CPD 

¶ 140 at 4. We therefore recommend that University Loft be reimbursed for the 

costs of preparing its quotation, as well as the reasonable costs of filing and 

pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Bid Protest Regulations, 

4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d) (2012). University Loft should submit its certified claims for costs 

directly to the contracting agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. Id., 

§ 21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel

 

6 The ordinary and commonly understood meaning of “hook” is “a curved or bent 

device for catching, holding, or pulling” or “something curved or bent like a hook,” 

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hook, or “a

curved or sharply bent device, usually of metal, used to catch, drag, suspend, or 

fasten something else.” The American Heritage Dictionary, www.ahdictionary.com/

word/search.html?q=hook. 

7 Although we need not (and do not) decide whether a “hook assembly” is an 

industry standard, the protester has adduced persuasive evidence supporting its 

argument that the agency’s interpretation of the specification is unreasonable.