Spacesaver Systems, Inc., B-284924; B-284924.2, June 20, 2000

Spacesaver Systems, Inc., B-284924; B-284924.2, June 20, 2000 TITLE: Spacesaver Systems, Inc., B-284924; B-284924.2, June 20, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284924; B-284924.2 DATE: June 20, 2000 ********************************************************************** Spacesaver Systems, Inc., B-284924; B-284924.2, June 20, 2000 Decision Matter of: Spacesaver Systems, Inc. File: B-284924; B-284924.2 Date: June 20, 2000 William J. Spriggs, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for the protester. Jeffrey C. Morhardt, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly performed cost/technical tradeoff under a best value acquisition approach for a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) purchase without advising vendors of this evaluation method, is denied where record shows that, in fact, agency did not conduct a best value evaluation or perform a tradeoff; rather, agency rejected protester's lower-priced product as unacceptable for failing to meet delivery requirements, and made award to the FSS vendor offering to meet all requirements at the lowest overall cost to the government. DECISION Spacesaver Systems, Inc. protests the Department of Education's (DOE) award of two delivery orders to Capitol Office Systems, Inc. under that firm's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract for high density filing systems. Spacesaver alleges that the agency improperly failed to make award to the low-priced, technically acceptable firm, and also failed to afford it an opportunity to respond to a revision to the agency's requirements. We deny the protest. The agency was interested in acquiring approximately 47,000 linear inches of high density filing systems in connection with the move of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) from one location in Washington, D.C. to another. The agency decided to make its purchase from the FSS and contacted five vendors, including the protester, that held current FSS contracts for the filing systems. In this connection, the record shows that on February 29, 2000 the agency provided the vendors (by facsimile) a document entitled "Scope of Work" (SOW), which requested information from the vendors regarding the requirement. [1] Of importance for purposes of the protest, the SOW stated that the agency required the filing systems to be installed by March 30 and April 6 (the two dates relate to systems to be installed on two different floors of the NCES's new offices), and required offerors to provide information regarding their proposed configurations by March 3. SOW at 1. The SOW also specifically asked offerors to identify separate costs associated with items that were not covered under their FSS contracts. Id. In response to the agency's request, Spacesaver submitted pricing and configuration information. In the March 3 cover letter accompanying its submission, Spacesaver advised the agency as follows: In order to meet your deadlines . . . we are quoting all Quickship products. These products are not available on [our FSS] contract at this time. . . . In order for us to meet [the agency's delivery requirements], we will need to have an order no later than Monday, March 6th. . . . For every day the order is delayed after March 6 delivery and installation time will increase by two days. The only product we cannot deliver in time will be the full height locking doors for the mobile systems on the 9th [floor]. These will be installed 7 weeks from the time of order. Our standard products are available on [FSS] contract and we can offer them to you on [FSS] contract, but they take 6 weeks to ship, plus installation time. (The record also shows that Spacesaver's submission to the agency was unclear regarding whether its terms included the filing systems for one of the rooms in question. Agency Report, Apr. 14, 2000, at 3.) On March 9, subsequent to receiving information from the vendors, the agency issued a document entitled "Modification to Scope of Work." In this document, the agency advised vendors that the anticipated award date had slipped a few days, that the agency now anticipated awarding the purchase order on March 10, and that DOE needed revised information regarding the vendors' installation schedules. This document was not provided to the protester, apparently because of the statement in Spacesaver's original submission that, even with its Quickship line of products (which were not available under Spacesaver's FSS contract, and therefore could not properly have been ordered by the agency), installation would be delayed an additional 2 days for every day the order was delayed after March 6.