Container Products Corporation

B-270360.2 Jun 11, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which was issued by the Department of the Navy for special industry machinery described as a "ultra high pressure water blast recovery and filtration system" to be used in Naval shipyards. ' that is. The protester's submission asserted in its opening summary that it was offering the system as described in the solicitation. " and stated that both units "are totally self- supporting recycling cleaning systems.". Which (if any) of these systems was being offered. When Container Products' technical response was evaluated. It was found technically unacceptable. The omitted information concerned whether the system was a current field proven design. How (or whether) the listed components were integrated into a system. View Decision Matter of: Container Products Corporation File: B-270360.2 Date: June 11, 1996 Agency reasonably rejected protester's response to notice of sole-source award in Commerce Business Daily as technically unacceptable where notice required potential offerors to submit technical literature and data demonstrating compliance with the listed performance, safety and construction standards; protester submitted only general technical information, failing even to identify the exact equipment being offered. Attorneys DECISION Container Products Corporation protests the rejection of its response to solicitation No. N00600-95-N-3559 POC, which was issued by the Department of the Navy for special industry machinery described as a "ultra high pressure water blast recovery and filtration system" to be used in Naval shipyards. We deny the protest. On September 18, 1995, the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center published its intent in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) to award a sole-source contract for the equipment under the above referenced solicitation number to United Technologies, Waterjet Systems, Inc. The CBD notice described a system that would be capable of removing underwater and above-water paint from ships located in drydock and specified required physical and performance characteristics for the equipment. The notice specified that: "[e]quipment shall be of the manufacturer's 'current field proven design,' that is, offerors shall submit (1) data that demonstrates compliance with the performance, safety, and construction standards of the specifications; (2) structural, mechanical, and electrical design, construction and performance specifications for all major assemblies and subassemblies of the equipment; (3) description of operation, including maintenance and trouble-shooting techniques; (4) utilities required and estimated quantity, in standard units, to support operation of the equipment." The synopsis, referencing CBD note 22, stated that in order to be considered, interested firms must submit technical literature describing their capability to provide the required product as well as terms and conditions and a complete price quote, within 45 days of publication of the synopsis. The CBD notice stated that no formal solicitation existed, and that none would be issued unless the contracting officer determined to do so, based on responses from other interested potential sources. Container Products submitted an 8-page response describing its product. The protester's submission asserted in its opening summary that it was offering the system as described in the solicitation, and stated that "this design, as proposed, meets in total the requirements of the solicitation," but did not otherwise identify the specific equipment being offered, either by model number or other means. The submission included no technical literature. Container Products stated in its submission that the firm's "field equipment includes the S/SSAP . . . Self-Supporting All Purpose Cleaning System and the S/SCARP . . . Self-Contained Automatic Retrieval Product," and stated that both units "are totally self- supporting recycling cleaning systems." It did not disclose, however, which (if any) of these systems was being offered, nor did it provide any information concerning either product's status as a "field-proven design." When Container Products' technical response was evaluated, it was found technically unacceptable. The contracting officer advised the firm of this conclusion by letter, listing five specific areas in which the submission failed to provide information demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the solicitation. In summary, the omitted information concerned whether the system was a current field proven design; how (or whether) the listed components were integrated into a system; whether one of the two systems listed in the proposal was an unacceptable "abrasive media system;" how water recovery by "powerful vacuum" was to be accomplished; and what type of paint system the equipment would remove, as well as the condition of the surface following the paint removal.