CAMS Inc., B-292546, October 14, 2003

B-292546 Oct 14, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency improperly placed an order based on a request for quotations that provided that final inspection and acceptance must be at the actual manufacturing facility based upon a quotation that provides for inspection and acceptance at facility where the supplies are to be packaged. CAMS asserts that Flinchbaughs quote is unacceptable because it failed to comply with the solicitations inspection and acceptance requirements. The base quantity amount was increased to 675 plates and the option quantity was increased to 675 plates. It was stated: FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF MATERIAL SHALL BE AT THE ACTUAL MANUFACTURING FACILITY. TECHNICAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED. CONDITION INSPECTIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. View Decision CAMS Inc., B-292546, October 14, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION CAMS Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to The Flinchbaugh Co., Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP0760-03-Q-E828, a small business set-aside, issued by the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), for cable support plates. CAMS asserts that Flinchbaughs quote is unacceptable because it failed to comply with the solicitations inspection and acceptance requirements. We sustain the protest. DSCC issued the RFQ on April 14, 2003, to acquire 297 cable support plates with an option for an additional 297 plates. The RFQ provided for a "best value" award of a fixed-priced order based on a comparative assessment of "offeror's prices, quoted deliveries, and past performance." RFQ Sec. M. By amendment, the base quantity amount was increased to 675 plates and the option quantity was increased to 675 plates. In the "Item Description," section B of the RFQ, it was stated: FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF MATERIAL SHALL BE AT THE ACTUAL MANUFACTURING FACILITY. TECHNICAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE DRAWINGS AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO VERIFY THAT MATERIAL MEETS ALL TECHNCAL REQUIREMENTS. COUNT, KIND, AND CONDITION INSPECTIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS NOTE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER MASTER SOLICITATION PART ONE PROVISIONS, NOTE 6, QUOTATIONS BY NON-MANUFACTURERS. Section B also specified the requirements for preparation of delivery, including packaging. The cable support plates were identified in the RFQ as a "critical" item involving aircraft launch and recovery equipment and section B required that any major or minor waiver/deviation from the specifications be approved by the agency. Section E of the RFQ included other clauses concerning inspection and acceptance. Specifically, the standard clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.246-2, Inspection of Supplies-Fixed Price was incorporated by reference. RFQ Sec. E02. In section E03, the RFQ advised that "[i]nspection for compliance with contract requirements will be performed at origin by an authorized Government inspector" and that "[for contract line item numbers] described by a Military or Federal specification or purchase description contractor must present evidence showing compliance with all contract and specification requirements including preparation for delivery." Section E03 also provided space for the quoter to list inspection points for supplies and for packaging. Section E04 provided that "[a]cceptance will be performed by an authorized Government Representative at origin" and that "[t]he point of acceptance will be the point of last inspection before shipment unless otherwise indicated by the offeror." DSCC received 26 quotations in response to the RFQ on May 12, 2003. Flinchbaugh submitted the lowest-priced quotation at $23,215.50 and CAMS submitted the next lowest at $24,286.50. Flinchbaugh, which is located in York, Pennsylvania, proposed in its quotation to manufacture the supplies at its York facility. Also in its quotation, Flinchbaugh designated as its "Packaging--Inspection and Acceptance Address" a firm located elsewhere in Pennsylvania. /1/ In section E03 of the quotation, Flinchbaugh identified as inspection points the vendor's facility under "supplies" and the aforementioned packaging facility for "packaging." The record evidences that DSCC selected Flinchbaugh's quotation as the "best value" on June 12 because it was the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation. After DSCC denied CAMS agency-level protest, this protest followed. CAMS contends that Flinchbaugh's quotation failed to satisfy the requirement in section B that final inspection and acceptance occur at the actual manufacturing facility for the materials because it listed a separate facility for this purpose.