The Refinishing Touch, B-293562; B-293562.2; B-293562.3, April 15, 2004

The Refinishing Touch, B-293562; B-293562.2; B-293562.3, April 15, 2004 TITLE: The Refinishing Touch, B-293562; B-293562.2; B-293562.3, April 15, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293562; B-293562.2; B-293562.3 DATE: April 15, 2004 ********************************************************************** The Refinishing Touch, B-293562; B-293562.2; B-293562.3, April 15, 2004 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: The Refinishing Touch File: B-293562; B-293562.2; B-293562.3 Date: April 15, 2004 Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester. Capt. John P. Dever, Maj. Frank A. March, Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., and Kevin K. LaChance, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency*s affirmative determination of successful vendor*s responsibility is dismissed where record does not support allegation that contracting officer failed to consider available relevant information. DECISION The Refinishing Touch (TRT) protests the agency*s issuance of a purchase order to Commercial Marketing Corporation (CMC) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911RX-04-T-0044, issued by the Department of the Army for furniture refinishing services. The protester challenges the agency*s selection of CMC, alleging that CMC*s price is too low to perform the services the protester believes are required under the RFQ, and contesting the agency*s affirmative determination of CMC*s responsibility. We dismiss the protest. The RFQ, issued as a small business set-aside, sought refinishing services for Army barracks furniture at Fort Riley, Kansas. The RFQ*s general performance-based specifications called for furniture reconstitution, including refinishing, relaminating, reupholstering, and hardware repair work; each line item of the RFQ*s pricing schedule represented a different type of furniture to be serviced. The RFQ, issued under simplified acquisition procedures, contained no evaluation factors for selection other than price.[1] Earlier, as part of its market research, the agency had asked TRT to prepare a cost analysis comparing the anticipated price to do the reconstitution work to the price of purchasing new furniture. That analysis supported reconstitution of the furniture, since TRT*s prices for the work were found by TRT to be lower than the cost of purchasing new furniture. The agency discounted the analysis, however, because the prices cited by TRT for purchasing new furniture were deemed to be extremely high; this apparently also gave the agency some concern about the adequacy of the prices for furniture reconstitution in TRT*s analysis. Although the agency had initially considered procuring the services under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), the RFQ was ultimately issued as an open market competitive small business set-aside, since TRT had been the only FSS vendor to express any interest in the work. The agency issued the RFQ with a scope of work derived from some of the general provisions in TRT*s FSS contract for furniture refinishing services. Specific technical information or methodologies were not sought from the vendors; rather, the scope of work included only general performance-based requirements. For example, vendors were advised of the following general requirements: to *[r]efinish/[rel]aminate and reupholster all pieces based on volume count and building count provided*; that *[a]ll work is to be performed on site*; that *[a]ll surfaces shall be cleaned with suitable water based solvent to remove oils, grease, wax, films and dirt to ensure good adhesion of finishing materials*; and that the vendor use *standard commercial laminate replacement specifications to achieve a commercial quality installation.* RFQ at 33-34. Two vendors, TRT and CMC, submitted quotes under the RFQ after having been given the opportunity at separate site visits to observe the furniture to be serviced. TRT*s quote (at $404,619.02) was significantly higher than CMC*s quote (at $184,394). After requesting that vendors confirm the accuracy of their prices, the agency issued a purchase order to CMC based on its lower price. This protest followed. Although TRT generally argues that the agency was required to reject CMC*s quote because it is substantially lower than TRT*s quote, we see no basis to question CMC*s eligibility based upon its price.