National Office Systems, Inc.

B-274785 Jan 06, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The delivery order was placed under Spacesaver's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract No. NOS also alleges that the agency's best value determination was flawed as it was based on an inaccurate assessment of NOS's product line and past performance. The procurement was initiated in July 1996 when a purchase request for the filing systems was placed with the agency's General Acquisition Division. Since NOS was the authorized dealer for the White product line. NOS indicated that it could only submit a price quote if the specifications were not specific to the Spacesaver brand system. [1] Another purchase request was subsequently reissued using generic specifications for the filing systems on September 9. View Decision Matter of: National Office Systems, Inc. File: B-274785 Date: January 6, 1997 Under regulations governing Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) use, procuring agency met its responsibility to select the best value items at the lowest overall price after reviewing the General Services Administration's automated pricing and product information system and reasonably determining that the selected FSS contractor's product meets the agency's needs. Attorneys DECISION National Office Systems, Inc. (NOS) protests the issuance of delivery order No. S-FBOAD-96-F-0246 to Spacesaver Systems, Inc. by the Department of State for high density filing systems to be installed at the State Department Annex. The delivery order was placed under Spacesaver's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract No. GS-28F-1003C, for a total price of $173,399.67. NOS, an authorized dealer for White Systems, Inc. (the schedule contractor), alleges that the agency failed to solicit a quotation from the firm, thereby depriving it of an opportunity to compete. NOS also alleges that the agency's best value determination was flawed as it was based on an inaccurate assessment of NOS's product line and past performance. We deny the protest. The procurement was initiated in July 1996 when a purchase request for the filing systems was placed with the agency's General Acquisition Division. The agency used the Spacesaver specifications to define its requirements and the contracting officer orally solicited price quotations from Spacesaver and NOS. Since NOS was the authorized dealer for the White product line, NOS indicated that it could only submit a price quote if the specifications were not specific to the Spacesaver brand system. [1] Another purchase request was subsequently reissued using generic specifications for the filing systems on September 9, and the contracting officer reviewed the automated information available for several FSS contractors, including the catalogs and price lists for Spacesaver and White. In addition, because of the specific interest expressed by NOS in this purchase, the contracting officer asked the requirements office to review the White catalog to see if its filing system met the agency's needs and to prepare a cost estimate for the NOS/White system. The agency estimated the cost for the filing systems offered by Spacesaver and NOS/White as essentially the same ($18,000 to $20,000 per system); however, based on a comparison of each system's major line items, the agency evaluators concluded that the Spacesaver filing system would best meet the agency's needs. For example, in comparing the Spacesaver rails to the White track, the agency evaluators noted: "Spacesaver rails are structurally stronger in profile and are designed to interlock by means of a tongue and groove joint as opposed to a butt joint used in the White track. This butt joint is a nondesirable feature when considering stress factors with regard to mechanical wear and system integrity. In addition, the Spacesaver rails are levelled and anchored in a bed of continuous hydraulic grout which disperses the load evenly over the sub-structure. The White track is leveled with shims that in conjunction with the butt joints has inherent potential to misalign by deflection and fail in performance as well as create point loads on the sub-structure . . . the White tracks rely on side flanged wheels for carriage guidance which have a tendency to intensify the problem with maintaining track alignment whereas the Spacesaver center guide rail enhances alignment and minimizes carriage binding . . . ." Similar comparisons were made with regard to elevated floor decking and ramp, carriage frame, and end panels offered by the two systems, with the Spacesaver design considered superior in overall strength and versatility due primarily to its better structural integrity and variety of available components. Finally, the evaluators noted that the agency has both the Spacesaver and White systems installed at the State Department Annex, the location for installation under the protested delivery order.