GSA, Inc., B-283177, October 18, 1999

B-283177 Oct 18, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights GSA contends that it should have received the purchase order because its quotation was lower in price than AWI's. Prices were sought for an estimated quantity of 3. The notice further instructed that "quotations received will be subject to the Simplified Acquisition Procedures. One of the three was subsequently withdrawn. Its response was technically superior to GSA's and represented the best value to the government. GSA contends that the purchase order should have been issued to it since it was the lowest-priced qualified vendor. GSA argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to decide that the awardee's experience in manufacturing the sticks warranted its higher price because. The sticks are fairly simple products which are not difficult to produce. View Decision Matter of: GSA, Inc. File: B-283177 Date: October 18, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION GSA, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to Architectural Wood Institute (AWI) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. R1-16-99-900Q, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for fuel moisture sticks. The Forest Service uses the sticks in determining forest fire control ratings. GSA contends that it should have received the purchase order because its quotation was lower in price than AWI's. We deny the protest. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12.6 (Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation of Commercial Items), the Forest Service posted notice of a combined synopsis/solicitation for the fuel moisture sticks on the Commerce Business Daily Online (CBDNet) on May 21, 1999. The notice set forth detailed technical specifications for the sticks, which consist of four wooden dowels (kiln-dried to a uniform moisture content of 15 percent or less) attached to two hardwood pins. Prices were sought for an estimated quantity of 3,000 sets of sticks per year for each of 3 years. The notice instructed vendors to submit pricing for all 3 years "along with a description of sets furnished, experience and quality control in this type of work and names of references for past performance history." Agency Report, Tab 2, CBDNet Notice/Solicitation, May 21, 1999, at 000013-000014. The notice further instructed that "quotations received will be subject to the Simplified Acquisition Procedures, Part 13 of the [FAR}, and may be evaluated using price and other factors, such as successful past performance, technical experience and ability to meet the Government's needs, and price." Id. at 000014. The Forest Service received three quotations in response to the RFQ; one of the three was subsequently withdrawn, leaving only the quotations of GSA and AWI for consideration. GSA quoted a price of $10 per set of sticks for each of the 3 years; AWI quoted a price of $10.50 per set for the base year, $11.50 for the first option year, and $12.50 for the second option year. GSA furnished a list of recently performed contracts as part of its quotation, but did not furnish evidence that the firm had experience in manufacturing fuel moisture sticks or other wood products. GSA also failed to furnish any information regarding its quality control processes. AWI, in contrast, furnished a summary of its 19 years of experience in manufacturing the sticks and a description of its quality control methods. AWI also furnished a list of commercial and government clients to which it had furnished sticks. The contracting officer determined that GSA had not satisfactorily demonstrated in its quotation its ability to produce the sticks. The contracting officer further determined that given that AWI had extensive experience in manufacturing the sticks, whereas GSA had none, its response was technically superior to GSA's and represented the best value to the government. Agency Report, Tab 4, Determination for Award Statement, at 2. On June 28, the contracting officer issued a purchase order to AWI. GSA contends that the purchase order should have been issued to it since it was the lowest-priced qualified vendor. Specifically, GSA argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to decide that the awardee's experience in manufacturing the sticks warranted its higher price because, in GSA's view, the sticks are fairly simple products which are not difficult to produce. GSA asserts that there was no basis to question its ability to produce the sticks in light of its own general experience in supplying products to the government and its promise to furnish products meeting the agency's technical specifications.