Safety Storage, Inc.

B-275076 Jan 21, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly waived floor load and interior square footage criteria for awardee is denied where: (1) record shows that awardee's design fully complies with floor load requirement. (2) difference in interior square footage is slight. The RFQ was conducted as a brand name or equal small purchase procurement under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 13.103(g). Required the shed to have an interior square footage of 198 feet. Eight quotations were received. Although the protester's quotation was the lowest-priced. SSI also maintains that the Haz-Stor model proposed by LAMCO does not comply with either the solicitation's floor load capacity requirement or the interior square footage requirement. [1] SSI's challenge to the Army's decision to accept a post-closing date submission from LAMCO is without merit. View Decision Matter of: Safety Storage, Inc. File: B-275076 Date: January 21, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Safety Storage, Inc. (SSI) protests the award of a contract to LAMCO Industries under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DABT01-96-T-0018, issued by the Department of the Army for six steel prefabricated storage sheds for the 209th Military Police Company at Fort McClellan, Alabama. SSI contends that the Army improperly accepted a late submission from LAMCO and otherwise waived the solicitation's specified floor load and interior square footage requirements. We deny the protest. The RFQ was conducted as a brand name or equal small purchase procurement under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 13.103(g). The solicitation's amended purchase item description identified the required shed by means of the protester's brand name and product number, and--of significance to this protest--required the shed to have an interior square footage of 198 feet, a "uniformly distributed [floor] load [capacity] of 500 p.s.f. [pounds per square foot]," and a 10-year structural warranty. The solicitation advised quoters of "equal" shed models to submit "specification sheets" demonstrating compliance with the RFQ's purchase item description. By the September 18, 1996 closing date, eight quotations were received. Five firms--including LAMCO--submitted quotations for shed model "Haz-Stor LK 1024"; one submitted a quotation for shed model "CBS-8-20." Two other offerors--including the protester--submitted quotations for the specified brand name: Safety Storage Shed Model 22N. Although the protester's quotation was the lowest-priced, brand-name quotation, on October 3 the Army issued a purchase order to LAMCO for its lowest-priced, functionally equivalent ("equal") shed. On October 11, SSI filed this protest. The record shows that on September 23, the Army requested a copy of SSI's 10-year structural warranty. In its protest, SSI contends that the Army improperly permitted LAMCO to submit evidence of its compliance with the RFQ's structural warranty requirement after the September 18 closing date. SSI also maintains that the Haz-Stor model proposed by LAMCO does not comply with either the solicitation's floor load capacity requirement or the interior square footage requirement. [1] SSI's challenge to the Army's decision to accept a post-closing date submission from LAMCO is without merit. Agencies may use simplified procedures that "promote competition to the maximum extent practicable" for small purchases of property and services not expected to exceed $100,000. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2304(g) (1994); 41 U.S.C. Sec. 403(11) (1994). Under these procedures, agencies generally may seek and consider revisions to a quotation any time prior to the government's issuance of a purchase order. See DataVault Corp., B-248664, Sept. 10, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 166. This is because, unlike a request for proposals or an invitation for bids, an RFQ does not seek offers that can be accepted by the government to form a contract. Rather, the government's purchase order is the offer which the proposed supplier may accept through performance or by a formal acceptance document. FAR Sec. 13.108. Moreover, where, as here, an RFQ does not contain a late quotations provision--but merely requests quotations by a certain date--that date is not considered to be a firm closing deadline. See A & B Trash Serv., B-250322, Jan. 22, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 53. Thus, the Army's decision in this case to permit LAMCO to submit evidence of its compliance with the RFQ's structural warranty requirement is unobjectionable. [2] SSI next contends that the awardee's proposed shed does not meet the RFQ's 500 p.s.f. floor capacity specification.