B-297534.4, CHE Consulting, Inc., May 17, 2006

B-297534.4 May 17, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CHE Consulting, Inc. protests the terms of a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) to several firms holding Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts seeking quotations to perform on-site predictive, remedial and preventive hardware maintenance service for StorageTek equipment located at various agency locations. CHE argues that the RFQ overstates DISA's needs by requiring vendors to have a relationship with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), StorageTek. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297534.4, CHE Consulting, Inc., May 17, 2006 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: CHE Consulting, Inc. File: B-297534.4 Date: May 17, 2006 Steven E. Kellogg, Esq., The Kellogg Law Firm, PC, for the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq., and John J. O'Brien, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, and Charles W. Steese, Esq., Steese & Evans, P.C. for Storage Technology Corporation, an intervenor. Robert R. Goff, Esq., and James W. DeBose, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where agency record provides reasonable basis for requirement in solicitation for critical maintenance services that each vendor demonstrate in its quotation how it would obtain support from the original equipment manufacturer in the event that the vendor's remedial maintenance efforts for a malfunctioning unit were not successful within the service standard specified in the solicitation. DECISION CHE Consulting, Inc. protests the terms of a request for quotations[1] (RFQ) issued by the Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) to several firms holding Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts seeking quotations to perform on-site predictive, remedial and preventive hardware maintenance service for StorageTek equipment located at various agency locations. CHE argues that the RFQ overstates DISA's needs by requiring vendors to have a relationship with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), StorageTek. We deny the protest. DISA distributed the RFQ at issue on February 6, 2006, seeking quotations to provide services for a base year and one annual option period, as well as hourly rates for certain other services. RFQ at 6. The work to be performed under the RFQ involves maintaining –over 1,100 pieces of [StorageTek] equipment.— AR, Tab 4, E-mail from DISA Program Analyst to Contracting Officer (Jan. 18, 2006), at 1.[2] The RFQ terms challenged by the protester require each vendor to provide support from the original equipment manufacturer (i.e., StorageTek) when the contractor is unable to return equipment to service within 4 hours by the contractor's own efforts, and to include in each quotation information explaining how the vendor would engage StorageTek without government intervention. RFQ at 8 (remedial maintenance statement of work); RFQ amend. 1, at 5 (instructions for preparation of quotation). Essentially, the requirement anticipates that the vendor will show that it has a service agreement in place to obtain assistance from StorageTek when needed. AR, Tab 11, Letter from Contracting Officer to Legal Counsel for CHE (Feb. 13, 2006). The requirement presents a problem for CHE, however, primarily because CHE does not have such an agreement and is either unable or unwilling to obtain one.[3] CHE objects to the requirement as overstating the agency's needs. While a contracting agency has the discretion to determine its needs and the best method to accommodate them, Mark Dunning Indus., Inc., B-289378, Feb. 27, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 46 at 3-4, those needs must be specified in a manner designed to achieve full and open competition; solicitations may include restrictive requirements only to the extent they are necessary to satisfy the agency's legitimate needs. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2305(a)(1)(A)(i), (B)(ii) (2000). Where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive, the procuring agency has the responsibility of establishing that the specification is reasonably necessary to meet the agency's needs. The adequacy of the agency's justification is ascertained through examining whether the agency's explanation is reasonable, that is, whether the explanation can withstand logical scrutiny. Chadwick-Helmuth Co., B-279621.2, Aug. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 44 at 3. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment concerning the agency's needs and how to accommodate them does not show that the agency's judgment is unreasonable. USA Fabrics, Inc., B-295737, B-295737.2, Apr. 19, 2005, 2005 CPD para.