Design Contempo, Inc.

B-270483 Mar 12, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DCI contends that the agency improperly determined that DCI's proposed items were not equal to Thurston's. Before the delivery order was issued. DCI contends that the Navy erroneously determined that its products were not equal to the Thurston products. Of which the FSS is a part. Is considered to be a competitive procedure. When agency requirements are satisfied through the use of the FSS. The bulk of the items at issue are contained in a non- mandatory schedule. The decision whether to purchase an item from a vendor included on the schedule or to proceed with a new solicitation is a business judgment committed to the discretion of the contracting officer. The activity may consider such factors as special features of one item not provided by comparable items which are required in effective program performance. View Decision Matter of: Design Contempo, Inc. File: B-270483 Date: March 12, 1996 Under Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) purchase, agency met its responsibility to select the best value item at the lowest overall cost by issuing a request for quotations to gather additional information on competing products, comparing features of protester's offered items with those of another FSS vendor, and selecting that vendor after reasonably determining that protester's items did not possess certain required special features. Attorneys DECISION Design Contempo, Inc. (DCI) protests the issuance of a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) delivery order to Furniture by Thurston based upon its response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. N62604-95-T-D943, issued by the Department of the Navy for dormitory furniture. DCI contends that the agency improperly determined that DCI's proposed items were not equal to Thurston's. We deny the protest. The Navy requires various items of bedroom furniture for bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ) at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia. Prior to issuing any RFQ, the Navy contracted with an interior design firm, Hanbury, Evans, Newhill, Vlattas & Company (HENV), to develop an interior design for the BEQ rooms based on Navy requirements. These requirements included items with extensive detailing, generally found on higher-priced furniture, to improve the quality of life in the BEQs. In selecting furniture, HENV initially compared furniture and pricing for six FSS vendors, including Thurston and DCI. HENV sent all six an RFQ with written specifications at the end of May. After reviewing the vendors' submissions, HENV concluded that Thurston's furniture represented the best value, since its furniture met the most agency requirements at the lowest cost under the FSS. Based upon HENV's recommendation, the contracting officer prepared to issue a delivery order to Thurston. Before the delivery order was issued, DCI requested an opportunity to submit another quote for the requirement. The contracting officer then issued a new RFQ, which referenced Thurston part numbers "or equal" and listed some, but not all, of the features of the Thurston furniture items. Thurston and DCI submitted their initial quotes in August, and after the agency requested clarification on some matters, their final quotes in September. Thurston offered its FSS products for most of the items and provided "open market" quotes for four items (totaling less than $24,000), for a combined price of $300,609.60. DCI's quote, with a price of $295,771, identified all of its items as FSS catalog products, but indicated that it had modified its standard products to match the specified Thurston part numbers. Both HENV and the contracting officer's representative evaluated the vendors' submissions and compared the offered features. Based upon this review, they determined that only Thurston's products met the Navy's requirements including function, maintenance, durability, and comfort. Accordingly, on September 27, the agency issued delivery orders to Thurston. DCI protested to the Navy on October 11. After the Navy denied its protest, DCI filed a protest with our Office. DCI contends that the Navy erroneously determined that its products were not equal to the Thurston products. In DCI's view, its furniture equals or exceeds Thurston's furniture in all areas and costs less. The Navy argues that it reasonably determined that only the Thurston furniture met its minimum needs. We agree with the Navy. The Competition in Contracting Act specifically provides that GSA's multiple award schedule program, of which the FSS is a part, is considered to be a competitive procedure, and purchasing from the schedule requires no further competition. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2302(2)(c) (1994); Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 6.102(d)(3).