United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Chicago Dryer Inc. 

File: B-402340 

Date: February 16, 2010 

H. K. Tyler Jr. for the protester. 

Capt. Bridget E. Keenan, Department of the Army, for the agency. 

Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Agency reasonably found protester’s quotation technically unacceptable where 

solicitation required quotations to include detailed installation and modification 

plans, and quotation failed to demonstrate how equipment would be modified and 

integrated to ensure inter-operation with existing equipment within available space. 

2. Protest that agency should have resolved deficiencies in protester’s quotation 

through clarifications is denied; any such exchange would have constituted 

discussions, not clarifications, and agency generally has no obligation to hold 

discussions where, as here, solicitation stated that order would be issued based on 

initial quotations. 

DECISION 

Chicago Dryer Inc. (CDI), of Chicago, Illinois, protests the issuance of an order to 

Automated Laundry Systems & Supply (ALSS), of Anchorage, Alaska, under request 

for quotations (RFQ) No. W912CZ-10-Q-0001, issued by the Department of the Army 

for laundry equipment at Fort Richardson, Alaska. CDI challenges the evaluation of 

its quotation. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFQ, a total small business set-aside, sought quotations for a four-station 

spreader-feeder module, four-lane folder/cross folder module, and large-piece 

stacker module with discharge conveyor, all compatible with an existing Braun Flat 

Iron module. Quoted equipment had to meet specified power requirements and be 

suitable for installation in the available space, including a minimum of 16 inches 

between the stacker and a concrete support post. Among other submissions, 
vendors were required to include an installation plan and a modification plan. 

Quotations were to be evaluated for “best value” under three factors--technical 

information (including installation plan, equipment’s ability to maintain/enhance 

current functionality, and modification plan); past performance; and price. The 

non-price factors combined were considerably more important than price. RFQ at 8. 

Three vendors submitted quotations, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation 

team (TET). The TET consensus evaluation identified numerous informational 

deficiencies in CDI’s quotation. It found that the quotation lacked clarity and 

completeness overall and concluded that the quotation did not demonstrate a clear 

understanding of the RFQ’s requirements. For example, the TET found that CDI’s 

quotation narrative and installation plan lacked detail, failing to address power 

requirements and warranties on modifications, and that its brochures and drawing 

contained conflicting and confusing information on equipment sizes, capacities, and 

options. Source Selection Evaluation Report (SSER), Tab 10, at 2-5. ALSS was the 

only vendor whose quotation was evaluated as technically acceptable, and the 

agency thus issued it an order for $120,126. After receiving notice of issuance of the 

order, CDI filed this protest. 

CDI challenges virtually every deficiency identified by the TET as incorrect, and 

concludes that it should have received the order because its quoted price was lower 

than ALSS’s. In considering a protest of an agency’s quotation evaluation, our review 

is confined to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent 

with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. See United 

Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 75 at 10-11. We have considered 

all of CDI’s arguments and find that none has merit.1 We discuss three of its 

arguments below. 

With regard to the agency’s finding that its quotation lacked necessary detail, CDI 

asserts that the agency “never specified what specific[ ] processes [it] was interested 

in” regarding integration; thus, since its quotation addressed integration of the 

existing flat iron, speed controls, and interfacing of equipment and controls, with no 

exception to the requirements, it should not have been rejected. Protest at 1-2. 

CDI’s assertions are without merit. The RFQ provided sufficient guidance for 

preparing quotations, including requirements for both a detailed installation plan 

covering the proposed equipment’s ability to interface and integrate with existing 

 

1

 CDI also challenges the “numerous” changes to the RFQ in a “very short period of 

time” and asserts that it should have been permitted to submit brochures as .pdf 

files. Protest at 4. Protests of alleged solicitation improprieties such as these must 

be filed prior to the deadline for receipt of quotations. Bid Protest Regulations, 

4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2009). Since CDI did not raise these issues prior to the 

submission deadline, this aspect of its protest is untimely and we will not consider it. 

Page 2 B-402340 
equipment “within the space available,” and a modification plan describing how 

vendors would make each proposed module fully operational with the existing flat 

iron, including how new or existing equipment would be modified for electrical 

wiring, circuitry, or reprogramming. RFQ at 5, 7. 

While CDI’s quotation included some general statements, it failed to provide the 

detailed information called for. For example, the quotation stated that CDI’s 

equipment would “easily integrate” with the existing flat iron; that speed controls of 

“either the feeder or folder” offered “[would] require integration”; that CDI would 

install a stop circuit so that the feeder would stop when the flat iron stopped; that 

CDI’s equipment could be “interfaced by interlocking and providing an interface 

between all components”; and that CDI would provide its “high intelligent controls” 

for “smooth operation.” Quotation Narrative at 1-2. The quotation further stated that 

“some control circuits [would] be modified allowing the feeder, ironer and folder and 

stackers to communicate,” and that CDI considered these to be “minor 

modifications.” Id. at 2. However, the quotation did not explain why these 

modifications would be minor, and did not address the specific power requirements. 

Further, apart from stating that various items would be accomplished by 

“retro-fitting the systems in order to make one complete system,” CDI’s quotation 

lacked any detailed installation and modification plans, and did not otherwise 

describe “how” it would integrate and modify the proposed and existing equipment 

to ensure successful inter-operation. Given the absence of the required detailed 

plans and explanations, the TET reasonably found that it could not evaluate whether 

CDI’s equipment would meet the stated requirements. Ervin & Assocs., Inc., 

B-280993, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 151 at 6 (blanket offers of compliance with 

stated requirements are not an adequate substitute for detailed information 

necessary to establish how vendor proposes to meet agency requirements). 

With regard to whether its equipment would fit within the available space, CDI cites 

its quotation’s statements that “[a]ll systems offered [would] easily fit in the space 

made available and [would] provide the necessary clearances as specified,” and also 

asserts that its drawing “clearly indicated” that CDI’s equipment would fit in the 

current space. Quotation Narrative at 1; Protest at 2. However, the agency 

considered these broad statements inadequate and found CDI’s drawing and 

brochures to be conflicting and confusing. In this regard, the TET found that the 

quotation did not specify complete dimensions for CDI’s proposed folder/stacker, 

and noted that CDI’s product brochures stated that “[s]pecifications [were] subject 

to change without notice.” Quotation, attachs. 5-7. By its own estimate, based on 

CDI’s brochure information, the TET determined that the quoted equipment, once 

integrated, would exceed the available length by 18 inches. SSER, Tab 10 at 3. 

Further, the TET inferred that, because CDI’s drawing showed its stacker at a 

“cocked” angle, CDI was attempting to force the equipment to meet the RFQ’s 

16-inch column clearance requirement, and noted that the quotation did not address 

whether the machine would even operate in that position. Quotation, attach. 7; 

SSER, Tab 10, at 2. The drawing also depicted a centerline for the existing flat iron, 

which suggested to the TET that CDI intended to reposition it even though the RFQ 

Page 3 B-402340 
Page 4 B-402340 

prohibited relocation of the machine. RFQ at 4. (Consistent with the TET’s concern, 

CDI’s cover letter suggested that the agency amend the RFQ, in part, to permit 

relocation of the flat iron. Quotation Letter at 1.) Based on the conflict between the 

quotation’s claim that CDI’s equipment would fit within the available space and the 

other indications that it would not, we find the TET reasonably concluded that CDI’s 

quotation did not adequately establish that its equipment would meet the agency’s 

requirements. We conclude that the agency reasonably rejected the quotation as 

unacceptable.2 

CDI asserts that the agency should have sought clarification of any unclear areas of 

its quotation, since the agency did not “possess the technical expertise to read 

drawings or understand narratives associated with [its] questions.” Initial Comments 

at 1. CDI’s opinion of the agency’s expertise notwithstanding, since CDI’s quotation 

was rejected as unacceptable, providing CDI an opportunity to correct deficiencies 

would constitute discussions, not clarifications--it would involve the submission of 

information necessary to make the quotation acceptable. Gemmo-CCC, B-297447.2, 

July 13, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 182 at 5. Agencies generally are not required to conduct 

discussions where, as here, the RFQ specifically advised of the agency’s intent to 

issue an order on the basis of initial quotations, without discussions. See Colmek 

Sys. Eng’g, B-291931.2, July 9, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 123 at 7. CDI has provided no basis--

nor have we found any in the record--for questioning the agency’s decision not to 

engage in discussions. Gemmo-CCC, supra.

3

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

 

2

 CDI challenges its past performance evaluation. However, since we find that the 

agency reasonably rejected CDI’s quotation, this argument is academic. See ProMar; 

Urethane Prods. Corp., B-292409 et al., Aug. 25, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 187 at 8 n.11. 

3

 CDI asserts that the agency “communicated with the vendor who was tentatively 

awarded this proposal on numerous occasions,” and that many of the changes in the 

RFQ were “stimulated” by that vendor and the agency. Initial Comments at 1. CDI 

has provided nothing in support of these claims and there is nothing in the record to 

indicate that the agency held discussions or otherwise improperly communicated 

with ALSS. Allegations of possible impropriety, unaccompanied by supporting 

evidence, amount to mere speculation, and as such do not provide valid bases for 

protest. Delta Ventures, B-238655, June 25, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 588 at 4.