Innovative Refrigeration Concepts

B-272370 Sep 30, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency's specifications for air conditioning chillers were overly restrictive because they required a particular type of heat exchanger and digital controller is denied where the agency reasonably found that these features reflected its minimum needs as they would ensure less maintenance. IRC contends that the amended specifications are overly restrictive. These chiller units are installed outside of buildings and operate to cool water that is then pumped inside the building through the air conditioning system. Some 15 to 30 of which are replaced annually. Award was to be made to the low responsive. All were technically acceptable and. IRC's proposal was the apparent low offer. View Decision Matter of: Innovative Refrigeration Concepts File: B-272370 Date: September 30, 1996 Protest that agency's specifications for air conditioning chillers were overly restrictive because they required a particular type of heat exchanger and digital controller is denied where the agency reasonably found that these features reflected its minimum needs as they would ensure less maintenance, more efficient cooling, and more efficient troubleshooting and control of problems. Attorneys DECISION Innovative Refrigeration Concepts (IRC) protests the amended specifications to request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT23-96-R-0049, issued by the Department of the Army for air cooled water chillers at Fort Knox, Kentucky. IRC contends that the amended specifications are overly restrictive. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price contract for three 60-ton air conditioning chillers, specified on a brand name Trane or equal basis. The RFP listed a number of salient characteristics including a power control transformer, a microprocessor controller, and a requirement that each unit be air cooled. These chiller units are installed outside of buildings and operate to cool water that is then pumped inside the building through the air conditioning system. Fort Knox has approximately 400 chillers, some 15 to 30 of which are replaced annually. Award was to be made to the low responsive, responsible offeror, but the RFP provided for a 10-percent price evaluation preference for qualified small disadvantaged business (SDB) offerors. IRC and eight other offerors submitted proposals by the May 2, 1996, closing date for receipt of offers. All were technically acceptable and, after application of the 10 percent evaluation preference, IRC's proposal was the apparent low offer. The contracting officer contacted the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Branch of the Fort Knox Directorate of Public Works to ensure that IRC's unit complied with all salient characteristics. On May 6, before the HVAC Branch replied, the contracting officer notified IRC that it was the apparent low offeror and requested verification that the IRC unit met certain certification requirements. The HVAC Branch advised the contracting officer that Fort Knox currently had two IRC units installed. While they met the salient characteristics set forth in the RFP, the units presented various maintenance problems. For example, the IRC unit used a plate design heat exchanger, which was less efficient than the tube-in-shell design offered by the other firms. This chiller design made it more difficult to clear clogs and to prepare the units for winter shutdowns since the plate design units could not be drained. Instead, each had to be filled with glycol (antifreeze), which had to be pumped out in the spring, resulting in the generation of hazardous waste. In addition, the IRC chiller included an obsolete controller while all other recently installed units, as well as all others proposed under this RFP, used a menu driven controller that provided more extensive processing, monitoring, and diagnostic functions. The HVAC Branch also questioned the amount of manufacturing contributed by IRC to its chiller units and whether IRC was therefore entitled to the SDB preference. On May 14, the contracting officer advised IRC that its SDB status was in question and requested IRC to verify its level of manufacturing. According to IRC, it submitted "voluminous" information in response. [1] On June 11, the contracting officer amended the RFP to provide that the power control transformer "shall be a stand-alone, menu-driven digital controller with processing, monitoring and diagnostic capabilities" and the chiller unit "shall possess a tube-in-shell heat exchanger designed with internally-finned copper tubes." Offerors were instructed to incorporate these changes into their best and final offers (BAFO). Instead of submitting a BAFO, IRC protested the amendment to our Office. IRC protests that the amended specifications are overly restrictive because both the tube-in-shell design and plate-type heat exchangers can handle the cooling function.