NLB Corporation, B-286846, February 26, 2001

B-286846 Feb 26, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably determined that awardee's quoted product was a current production model quoted for sale through manufacturer's published brochures. The items were to be commercial items. On the date this solicitation is issued [i.e. Or is being offered for sale through advertisements or manufacturer's published catalogs or brochures. To substantiate that the quoted equipment is a "current production model. The RFQ provided that "[t]he only literature that will be considered for this purpose includes manufacturer's published brochures. Award was to be made for a fixed price to the "[o]fferor whose quote conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the lowest priced among those [quotes] rated 'Technically Acceptable.'" RFQ at 52. /1/ The Navy received quotes from NLB and Flow. View Decision Matter of: NLB Corporation File: B-286846 Date: February 26, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION NLB Corporation protests the award of a contract to Flow International Corporation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00600-00-Q-2662, issued by the Department of the Navy for high-pressure water blast paint removal and related pumping equipment for use on Navy ships. The protester argues that the solicitation improperly failed to provide for evaluation of ownership costs, and that Flow's quoted hand-held high-pressure water blast equipment fails to meet the solicitation's current production commercial item requirement. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued under the simplified acquisition procedures (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 13.5), called for various equipment to be furnished in three delivery lots, with options for increased quantities. The items were to be commercial items, the RFQ providing that the "paint removal, pumping equipment shall be one of the manufacturer's current production models which, on the date this solicitation is issued [i.e., August 7, 2000], has been designed, engineered and sold, or is being offered for sale through advertisements or manufacturer's published catalogs or brochures," and that "[p]roducts such as a prototype unit, pre-production model, or experimental unit do not qualify as meeting this requirement." RFQ Para. 3.1 at 17. To substantiate that the quoted equipment is a "current production model," the RFQ required the submission of "descriptive literature" providing details of the product "pertinent to design, construction, operation, materials, components, capacities and performance characteristics, and accessories." Id. at 51. Additionally, the RFQ provided that "[t]he only literature that will be considered for this purpose includes manufacturer's published brochures, manufacturer's 'as built' engineering drawings and associated parts' lists . . . and manufacturer's published technical manuals." Id. Award was to be made for a fixed price to the "[o]fferor whose quote conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the lowest priced among those [quotes] rated 'Technically Acceptable.'" RFQ at 52. /1/ The Navy received quotes from NLB and Flow; although both were initially determined to be technically unacceptable, after discussions and receipt and evaluation of revised submissions, the agency determined that both quotes were acceptable. The agency made award to Flow as the lowest-priced acceptable vendor in the amount of $3,446,968 (versus $[DELETED] for NLB) on September 26, 2000. On September 28, 2000, NLB filed an agency-level protest arguing, among other things, that (1) Flow's quote was based on a two-pump system that did not meet the solicitation's paragraph 3.8.3 requirement for a single pump, indicated by the reference to "pump" in the singular, and (2) Flow's quoted hand-held TomCat units did not meet the solicitation's current production commercial item requirement because Flow "has not had advertisements or sold any of the . . . products." RFQ Paras. 3.8.3, 3.8.4 at 26-27; NLB Agency-Level Protest, Sept. 28, 2000, at 2-3. In response, on November 9, acknowledging that the RFQ "may have been ambiguous as to the pump requirements," the Navy issued amendments changing the singular references to pump to "pump or pumps" and "pumping system." Amends. 0005 and 0006, Nov. 15, and 16, 2000; Agency Response to NLB's Agency-Level Protest, Nov. 9, 2000, at 4. The agency also extended the closing date for revised quotes to December 8. Amend. 0007, Nov. 21, 2000. Regarding NLB's commercial item argument, the Navy denied the protest, responding that Flow's quoted TomCat met the RFQ's requirements because it was quoted for sale through the manufacturer's published brochures, as indicated in the firm's submitted "brochure along with additional literature outlining their TomCat model." Agency Response to NLB's Agency-Level Protest, Nov. 9, 2000, at 3.