ProMar; Urethane Products Corporation, B-292409; B-292409.2; B-292409.3, August 25, 2003

ProMar; Urethane Products Corporation, B-292409; B-292409.2; B-292409.3, August 25, 2003 TITLE: ProMar; Urethane Products Corporation, B-292409; B-292409.2; B-292409.3, August 25, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292409; B-292409.2; B-292409.3 DATE: August 25, 2003 ********************************************************************** ProMar; Urethane Products Corporation, B-292409; B-292409.2; B-292409.3, August 25, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: ProMar; Urethane Products Corporation File: B-292409; B-292409.2; B-292409.3 Date: August 25, 2003 William L. Walsh, Esq., Carla D. Craft, Esq., Carol F. Westmoreland, Esq., and J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for ProMar, and Steven E. Kellogg, Esq., and A. Ben Foster, Esq., Thompson Coburn, for Urethane Products Corporation, the protesters. Eric Plane for Fender Care Naval Solutions Ltd., the intervenor. Carl N. German, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably rejected protesters* quotations for pneumatic rubber fenders as technically unacceptable where the quotations included product literature that did not show compliance with the standards required by the solicitation. DECISION ProMar and Urethane Products Corporation protest issuance of a purchase order to Fender Care Naval Solutions Limited under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N65540-03-Q-0274, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for pneumatic and hydro-pneumatic rubber fenders for use in berthing and mooring ships and submarines. The protesters allege that the agency unreasonably rejected their proposals as technically unacceptable. We deny the protests. The RFQ, issued March 31, 2003, contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order.[2] The RFQ stated that the agency intended to select, based on initial quotations, the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation. The RFQ stated the following three factors for determining technical acceptability: technical compliance, corporate experience and past performance. Under the technical compliance factor, the RFQ stated: [A vendor] must demonstrate the Fenders it intends to furnish will comply with the requirements contained in the Specifications included in this RFQ. To comply with this requirement, [vendors] shall furnish existing product or descriptive literature, brochures, etc. that demonstrate the items to be furnished comply with the requirements set forth in the attached Specifications. RFQ at 3.[3] The specifications in the RFQ stated that the fenders to be furnished under the RFQ *shall be in accordance with the requirements of ISO Standard Number 17357, 2002(E).* This standard, published by the International Organization for Standardization, states the requirements for high-pressure floating pneumatic rubber fenders, including performance requirements and prototype test requirements. Agency Report, Tab 1, ISO Standard 17357. Among those requirements are requirements for basic body construction consisting in part of *synthetic-tyre-cord layers* for reinforcement, for a *static ozone ageing test,* and for internal and endurable pressure (i.e., inner air pressure at which the fender bursts). Id., S:S: 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.1, Tables 3 & 4. The agency received five quotations. One was immediately rejected as unacceptable for not including complete technical compliance information or any corporate experience or past performance information. The agency evaluated the remaining quotations, including those of the protesters and Fender Care. Fender Care quoted products manufactured by The Yokahama Rubber Co., Ltd.[4] Both protesters quoted products manufactured by HS R&A Co., Ltd. The agency evaluation determined that only Fender Care*s quotation included information demonstrating that the quoted products complied with all of the requirements of ISO 17357. Although not required by the terms of the RFQ, Fender Care*s quotation included independent testing and certification documentation demonstrating compliance with ISO 17357. Agency Report, Tab 7, Fender Care*s Quotation, Technical Compliance Information. ProMar*s quotation included product literature and general statements that the fenders manufactured by HS R&A comply with ISO 17357. Agency Report, Tab 5, ProMar*s Quotation, at 2, P: 1.0, Technical Compliance. Urethane*s quotation also included product literature but did not include a statement of compliance with ISO 17357.