Kasco Fuel Maintenance Corp.

B-274131 Nov 22, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that awardee's proposal failed to establish compliance with specifications is denied where agency reasonably found compliance based on descriptive literature in proposal and knowledge and literature evaluators already possessed concerning awardee's equipment. Waiver of this deficiency was unobjectionable since it did not prejudice protester. Proposals were required to include descriptive literature which established compliance with performance specifications in the RFP. The evaluation was to be on a pass/fail basis. Three proposals were submitted. Including KFMC's and ENPRO's (the third was rejected as unacceptable). Award was made to ENPRO based on its substantially lower price. View Decision Matter of: Kasco Fuel Maintenance Corp. File: B-274131 Date: November 22, 1996 Protest that awardee's proposal failed to establish compliance with specifications is denied where agency reasonably found compliance based on descriptive literature in proposal and knowledge and literature evaluators already possessed concerning awardee's equipment; although proposal failed to include information regarding performance of logistics support requirements, waiver of this deficiency was unobjectionable since it did not prejudice protester. Attorneys DECISION Kasco Fuel Maintenance Corp. (KFMC) protests the award of a contract to Environmental Products Sales Corporation (ENPRO) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68335-96-R-0109, issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, for antifreeze recycling units. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for machines to recycle commercial antifreeze from various commercial vehicles and light duty ground support equipment. Proposals were required to include descriptive literature which established compliance with performance specifications in the RFP. The evaluation was to be on a pass/fail basis, with award to be made to the lowest-cost, technically acceptable offeror. Three proposals were submitted, including KFMC's and ENPRO's (the third was rejected as unacceptable). Award was made to ENPRO based on its substantially lower price. KFMC argues that ENPRO's proposal failed to establish that its unit meets certain specifications and failed to comply with other requirements and therefore should have been found technically unacceptable; it also alleges specific defects in the evaluation process. As discussed below, we find no merit to KFMC's allegations. SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS KFMC maintains that ENPRO's proposal fails to establish that its unit meets the requirement that the antifreeze recycling unit produce recycled antifreeze with glycolic acid at a maximum level of 300 parts per million (ppm) and formic acid at 45 ppm. This argument is without merit. The literature included with ENPRO's proposal states that glycolic and formic acids are "neutralized or precipitated as potassium salt with glyclean and retained in filters." The agency read this statement as indicating that virtually all glycolic and formic acids would be removed, and that ENPRO's unit therefore met the requirement. We see nothing unreasonable in this conclusion. While KFMC claims that it was unreasonable for the evaluators to rely on this statement without test data or other objective supporting evidence, the RFP required no such evidence. Moreover, we note that KFMC's proposal also included no objective evidence supporting KFMC's proposal claim that its unit complies with the specification; thus, the offerors were treated the same. See Electrophysics Corp., B-258674, Feb. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 63. KFMC argues that the specification requires the acids to be "removed," not merely neutralized. There is no basis for reading the RFP so restrictively. Although the RFP labels the requirement "Acid Removal," the requirement goes on to state that the unit "shall produce recycled antifreeze with acidity levels as follows[.]" Further, KFMC itself concedes that the substances are no longer in "acid form" after neutralization. As ENPRO's proposal shows that its unit eliminates the acids, the agency reasonably determined that it meets the requirement. KFMC maintains that ENPRO's unit cannot remove particulate/solids in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) D-4656, as required; it asserts that ENPRO test data show inconsistent performance in this regard. This argument is without merit. The lab tests (performed in April 1992) contained in ENPRO's proposal show that ENPRO's unit produced recycled antifreeze with metal solids within the allowed maximums for solids stated in Table 3 of ASTM D-4656. The agency therefore reasonably concluded that ENPRO's unit meets the requirement.