Green Shop, Inc., B-278125, December 1, 1997

B-278125 Dec 01, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A proposal that fails to conform to material solicitation requirements is technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis for award. We met on industry standards and are of little consequence.". The protester has failed to provide any "industry standards" for the specification requirements it did not satisfy and it offered no explanation for why its failure to satisfy these requirements "are of little consequence.". The protester also complains that the awardee's proposal should have been rejected as technically unacceptable because the awardee proposed a pump that allegedly did not meet the specifications. The protester's sole support for this contention is the fact that. The protester is not an interested party eligible to challenge the contract award on the basis that the awardee failed to submit a technically acceptable proposal. View Decision Matter of: Green Shop, Inc. File: B-278125 Date: December 1, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Green Shop, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Arctic Industrial & Automotive Supply under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHC76-97-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army for a quantity of biodegradable parts washers. The protester challenges the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, provided that the award would be made to the offeror submitting the low-priced, technically acceptable proposal. The RFP stated that in determining the technical acceptability of a proposal, the agency would evaluate an offeror's compliance with the specifications and the required delivery schedule. Among other things, the specifications for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002 required that the cabinets of the parts washers be constructed of a minimum of 11-gauge steel and that the water tanks be constructed of stainless steel. For line item No. 0001, the specifications also required a production capacity of 200 gallons per minute and for line item No. 0002, the specifications required a production capacity of 80 gallons per minute. The agency rejected the protester's lower-priced proposal as technically unacceptable for failing to comply with the specifications. In its amended proposal, for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002, the protester proposed to furnish parts washers constructed of thinner 12-gauge steel, instead of thicker 11-gauge steel as required by the specifications. The protester also proposed steel water tanks instead of the required stainless steel water tanks. In addition, for line item No. 0001, the protester proposed a pump with a capacity of 150 gallons per minute, despite the protester's recognition that "[t]he requirements call[ed] for a unit producing 200 [gallons per minute]," and for line item No. 0002, the protester proposed a pump with a capacity of 52 gallons per minute which it claims "could come close to the requested 80 [gallons per minute]." In a negotiated procurement, a proposal that fails to conform to material solicitation requirements is technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis for award. See International Sales Ltd., B-253646, Sept. 7, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 146 at 2. Here, the protester clearly took exception to material solicitation requirements, thus rendering its proposal technically unacceptable. The protester concedes that it did not satisfy all of the specification requirements, stating that "we met or exceeded almost every specification and requirement. Those specifications that we did not meet to the letter, we met on industry standards and are of little consequence." (Emphasis added.) The protester has failed to provide any "industry standards" for the specification requirements it did not satisfy and it offered no explanation for why its failure to satisfy these requirements "are of little consequence." We agree with the agency that the protester took exception in its amended proposal to material specification requirements, thereby rendering its proposal technically unacceptable and making the firm ineligible for award. The protester also complains that the awardee's proposal should have been rejected as technically unacceptable because the awardee proposed a pump that allegedly did not meet the specifications. The protester's sole support for this contention is the fact that, while for line item No. 0002 the RFP required a 208-volt pump, the awardee proposed a 220-volt pump. However, the protester is not an interested party eligible to challenge the contract award on the basis that the awardee failed to submit a technically acceptable proposal. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.1(a) (1997), only an interested party may protest a federal procurement. That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a).