Southeast Technical Services, B-289065, December 20, 2001

Case: B-289065 Agency: Protester: Southeast Technical Services, B Date: 2001-12-20 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-289065 Dec 20, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency determined that awardee's manufacturer's certification demonstrated ability to perform and that its quotation therefore was worth higher price. Southeast contends that it should have received the purchase order because its quoted price was lower than MGC's. Quotations were to be evaluated based on technical capability and price. Was most advantageous to the government. Quotations were due by September 28. Which was submitted in response to the RFQ. 245 (the other is not relevant to the protest). Which were received during market research conducted by the agency a few weeks prior to the publication of the synopsis/solicitation. /1/ Although Southeast's price was low. Stated that "[w]e understand all aspects of this project and have installed this equipment before.". View Decision Southeast Technical Services, B-289065, December 20, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Southeast Technical Services protests the issuance of a purchase order to Max Grigsby Company, Inc. d/b/a MGC, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. F41622-01-Q-0032, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the installation of Fisher Hamilton laboratory furniture. Southeast contends that it should have received the purchase order because its quoted price was lower than MGC's. We deny the protest. On September 25, 2001, the Air Force posted a combined synopsis/solicitation (the RFQ) on the Internet calling for the installation of Fisher Hamilton laboratory furniture, a commercial item, using simplified acquisition procedures. The RFQ set forth seven tasks, including, for example, disconnecting plumbing and electrical casework, removing existing casework, tops and sinks, removing concrete ledges, patching and painting, and installing the laboratory furniture as recommended by the manufacturer. The RFQ specified that vendors "shall address all the requirements in this combined synopsis/solicitation, and shall provide clear evidence of understanding and the ability and willingness to comply with the Government's specifications of need." Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, Synopsis/Solicitation, at 6. Quotations were to be evaluated based on technical capability and price, with award to be made to the responsible vendor whose quotation, conforming to the RFQ, was most advantageous to the government, and the agency reserved the right to issue the purchase order without discussions. Id. Quotations were due by September 28. The agency evaluated three quotations--the protester's at $21,735, which was submitted in response to the RFQ, and two others, including MGC's at $36,245 (the other is not relevant to the protest), which were received during market research conducted by the agency a few weeks prior to the publication of the synopsis/solicitation. /1/ Although Southeast's price was low, it did not furnish any information regarding its understanding and ability to perform; it merely noted that Southeast had 35 years of experience with this type of work, and stated that "[w]e understand all aspects of this project and have installed this equipment before." AR, Tab 6, Southeast Quotation, at 1. MGC's quotation also did not contain detailed information on understanding and ability to perform, but did list the seven tasks required to perform the work; noted special considerations for reusing existing circuits, relocating circuits, and removing the concrete ledge under the existing cabinets; and provided a 4-week installation timeframe. AR, Tab 8, MGC's Quotation, at 1-2. Because the agency could not determine from its quotation whether Southeast understood and had the ability to perform the project, the agency requested by telephone that the protester submit information that would allow the agency to evaluate the protester's understanding of the project; specifically, the agency asked the protester if it was a certified installer of Fisher Hamilton furniture. Supplemental Memorandum of Law at 2-3. In response, Southeast submitted a breakdown of its total price, consisting of six separate dollar amounts, presumably corresponding in some way to the seven project requirements listed in the combined synopsis/solicitation. AR, Tab 6, Southeast Revised Quotation, at 2. No additional information regarding Southeast's technical ability was included and the protester declined to confirm or deny that it was certified to install Fisher Hamilton furniture. Supplemental Memorandum of Law at 3. On September 28, the contracting officer checked the Fisher Hamilton web site, which lists all of the manufacturer's dealers by state, and found that MGC was listed as a lab furniture dealer. /2/ Contracting Officer's Supplemental Statement at 1. See http:/fisherhamilton.com. This research also showed that Southeast was not a dealer.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...