HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobacygw0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Il
im
G A 0Comptroller General
- -Accountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
Decision
Matter of: Pride Mobility Products Corporation
File: B-291878
Date: April 8, 2003
Scott Marcus for the protester.
Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably determined that the protester's motorized scooters were
technically unacceptable because they failed to timely stop and were thus unsafe.
DECISION
Pride Mobility Products Corporation protests the determination by the Department
of Veterans Affairs that its motorized scooters were technically unacceptable under
request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-797-NC-03-0008. Pride challenges the agency's
findings that its three-wheel and four-wheel Victory scooters were slow to stop and
thus were unsafe.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued November 8, 2002, provided for the award of a requirements
contract, for a base year with four 1-year options. Award was to be made, without
discussions, to the offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most
advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The
evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were technical, price,
quality/past performance, and small disadvantaged business participation.
RFP at 32.
Under the technical factor, the agency was to evaluate the following subfactors:
stability and safety, ease of loading into a car, performance, modification options,
quality of wheels, durability, ease of use, specified test results, and comfort. A rating
of poor under stability and safety will result in the offer being rejected [and] [t]he
remaining evaluation [sub]factors will not be considered. RFP at 32.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobacygw0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)