LBM Inc., B-286271, December 1, 2000

B-286271 Dec 01, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Navy solicitation for transportation services, contending that the: (1) solicitation's requirement that the bidders must obtain International Standards Organization (ISO) 9000 registration was overly restrictive and exceeded the Navy's actual needs; and (2) Navy unreasonably required that bidders obtain ISO-9000 registration prior to bid submissions. GAO held that the: (1) Navy reasonably determined that ISO-9000 quality assurance standards reflected its needs; and (2) protester's second contention was academic, since the Navy had eliminated the requirement that a bidder must obtain ISO-9000 registration as a prerequisite to submitting an acceptable proposal. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: LBM Inc. File: B-286271 Date: December 1, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION LBM Inc. protests the provisions of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-00-R-0498 to provide transportation services at the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP) in Cherry Point, North Carolina. /1/ This solicitation was issued in anticipation of a cost comparison, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76, between the private-sector proposal offering the best value to the government and the government's most efficient organization (MEO). Among other things, the solicitation required that an offeror be registered pursuant to ISO-9000 standards prior to submitting a proposal. /2/ LBM protests that the solicitation's ISO-9000 requirements are inappropriate in that they are overly restrictive of competition and exceed the agency's actual needs. Following the agency's corrective action which rendered moot certain portions of LBM's protest, we deny the remaining protest issues. The solicitation at issue was published on August 31, 2000 and contemplates award of a fixed-price contract for a base period and four 1-year option periods. In anticipation of an A-76 cost comparison, the solicitation seeks private-sector proposals to perform various transportation related services, including: movement of aircraft, aircraft parts, components and materials within the NADEP and the surrounding area; refueling and defueling aircraft; forklift and lowboy services; transportation of visiting dignitaries; and equipment maintenance and administrative services. RFP, PWS, Sec. C-5. As initially issued, the solicitation also stated: The offeror shall address its possession of ISO-9001 (1994), ISO-9002 (1994), or ISO-9001 (2000) registration from a Registrar accredited by the American National Standards Institute Registration Accreditation Board (ANSI-RAB) for services required under the PWS. A copy of the offeror's "ISO-9000 Certificate of Compliance" and a letter signed by the offeror certifying that it is currently ISO-9001 (1994), ISO-9002 (1994), or ISO-9001 (2000) registered must be provided in this tab. Note: The ISO-9000 registration will not be subject to a qualitative rating evaluation or risk assessment. The ISO-9000 registration shall be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis only. Failure to provide the required proof of ISO-9000 registration by the time set for receipt of proposals will result in the offeror being rated "Unsatisfactory" for the entire Technical Approach factor contained in Section M. The offeror will thereby be ineligible for award and excluded from the competitive range, should discussions be held and one established. RFP at 76. The closing date for submission of proposals was October 18, 2000. By protest dated September 13, LBM challenged the above-quoted solicitation requirements regarding ISO-9000 registration. /3/ The agency subsequently extended the closing date for submission of proposals to December 18, 2000. LBM first protests that any provision requiring a private-sector offeror to obtain ISO-9000 registration is overly restrictive and exceeds the agency's actual needs. Among other things, LBM argues that the registration requirement is excessive because LBM maintains it has previously performed other, similar contracts, without meeting this requirement and the services involved are "not of a highly technical nature." Protester Comments, Oct. 25, 2000, at 2-3. The determination of a contracting agency's needs and the best method for accommodating them are matters primarily within the agency's discretion. Systems Application & Techs., Inc., B-270672, Apr. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 182 at 3. However, where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive of competition, we will review the record to determine whether the restrictions imposed are reasonably related to the agency's needs. Id. The adequacy of the agency's justification is ascertained through examining whether the agency's explanation is reasonable, that is, whether the explanation can withstand logical scrutiny. R.R. Mongeau Eng'rs, Inc., B-218356, B-218357, July 8, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para.