Safety Storage, Inc., B-280851, October 29, 1998

B-280851 Oct 29, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging agency decision not to set aside procurement for small business concerns is sustained where decision was based on insufficient efforts to ascertain small business capability to perform the contract. The total estimated value of the procurement is $499. The agency announced that the solicitation was canceled and that a new solicitation would be issued by DISC. SSI pointed out that the required MRC units are comparable to items that both itself and another small business had manufactured in the past. This MRC has never been purchased with the specifications that are required for this item in this solicitation. Solicitation will continue to be an unrestricted solicitation. View Decision Matter of: Safety Storage, Inc. File: B-280851 Date: October 29, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Safety Storage, Inc. (SSI) protests the decision of the Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC) to issue request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO-500-98-R-0999 for mobile reuse centers (MRC) for shore and land-based operations for the control and storage of hazardous materials, on an unrestricted basis. SSI, a small business, argues that the requirement should be set aside for small business concerns. We sustain the protest. Background The RFP contemplates the award of an indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery requirements contract for a 1-year base period with up to four 1-year option periods. RFP at 105. The total estimated value of the procurement is $499,999 for a maximum of 125 MRCs over the life of the contract. Agency Report (AR) at 1, and RFP clause No. I67. The Defense Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio (DSC-OH), initially synopsized the solicitation in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on September 3, 1997, as an unrestricted procurement. Subsequently, in a November 5 CBD notice, the agency announced that the solicitation was canceled and that a new solicitation would be issued by DISC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (DISC-PA). DISC-PA synopsized the procurement in the CBD on January 23, 1998, and issued the RFP on April 17, on an unrestricted basis. In a letter to DISC-PA dated May 23, SSI pointed out that the required MRC units are comparable to items that both itself and another small business had manufactured in the past, and requested that the RFP be set aside for small businesses. DISC-PA responded that: As stated at the pre-proposal conference, the MRC has never been purchased by DISC before. At this point in time, it has not been determined that 2 small businesses can manufacture this item. This MRC has never been purchased with the specifications that are required for this item in this solicitation. Solicitation will continue to be an unrestricted solicitation. DISC-PA's May 27 response to SSI. SSI subsequently filed this protest in our Office. The protester maintains that the contracting officer should have expected offers from at least two small business concerns. In this regard, SSI states that the required MRCs are not unique and are almost identical to MRCs procured under previous solicitations and manufactured by three different small businesses, including SSI. The protester asserts that the MRCs previously manufactured by these companies were of equivalent tube steel frame construction; enclosed with heavy gauge sheet metal; and that, except for one "minor cosmetic difference," the MRC design shown in an appendix to the RFP is almost identical to the units previously supplied to the government. Protest, August 21, 1998, at 2. SSI also points out that more than two small business concerns are on the bidders' mailing list prepared for this solicitation. The agency responds that this is the first time DISC-PA has purchased this MRC, and that the MRC is a very complex and "military-unique" item. AR at 4. According to the agency, among the complexities are the need to "meet a habitability requirement including a wide range of operating environments . . . which are beyond typical commercial applications," and "the need to 'withstand 100% shock loads and retain [the] integrity of the sump and provide no missile hazard to surrounding personnel or equipment.'" Id. at 4-5. In addition, the agency disagrees with the protester's assertion that there are only "cosmetic differences" between the MRC solicited here and units that were manufactured in the past by small businesses. The agency points out, for instance, that the MRCs required here include thicker tubular components; an indentation at one end that allows the item to be certified for safe containers; and the addition of "[s]ignificant material and structure . . . to provide 'egg-crating' in the sump area to limit sloshing due to US Navy defined ship motion. . . ." Id. at 5.