B-298881, Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc., December 11, 2006

B-298881 Dec 11, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to Staller Enterprises, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 144228, issued by the U. S. Marine Corps for weapons storage systems. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298881, Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc., December 11, 2006 Decision Matter of: Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc. File: B-298881 Date: December 11, 2006 Jane Glass for the protester. John R. Cohn, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that procuring agency improperly accepted higher-priced quotation over protester's lower-priced, technically acceptable quotation is denied where solicitation called for a vendor selection on –best value— basis and agency reasonably determined that awardee's quoted product was superior to protester's such that paying higher price was warranted. DECISION Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to Staller Enterprises, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 144228, issued by the U. S. Marine Corps for weapons storage systems. We deny the protest. The RFQ provided for issuance of an order on a –best value— basis applying the following evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): technical aspects, quality, delivery, final installation date, past performance, and price. With respect to the technical aspects factor, the quoted storage racks were required to meet six requirements: able to accommodate high security locks; rust resistant; non-marring weapon holders; metal end panels (high pressure laminate not permitted); locked racks not accessible from the front, back, top or sides; and each rack capable of operating independently. The RFQ further provided that the agency did not intend to hold discussions before selecting a vendor. Spacesaver and Staller submitted quotations.[1] The Corps found that Staller's product met or exceeded all technical requirements and was superior in design, materials, and durability to Spacesaver's, and that Staller provided the most comprehensive installation plan. In contrast, the agency found that Spacesaver's product suffered from deficiencies, including racks that could not be secured by high security locks, high pressure laminate rather than the required metal end panels, and weapon holders constructed of metal coated with plastic, which would wear and cause metal to metal contact and result in rusting. Based on this evaluation, the agency selected Staller's quotation as offering the best value to the government despite its higher price. Spacesaver protests that selection, arguing that its quotation should have been selected because it was technically acceptable and lower priced. Where, as here, a solicitation states that the agency will select the quotation found to be most advantageous to the government, as opposed to selecting a quotation strictly on the basis of technical acceptability and lowest-price, the evaluation is not limited to determining whether a quotation is merely technically acceptable; rather, quotations may be further differentiated to distinguish their relative quality by considering the degree to which the quotations exceed the stated minimum requirements or will better satisfy the agency's requirements. Chicago Dryer Co., B'293940, June 30, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 137 at 4. Here, the agency selected Staller's quotation over Spacesavers based on its conclusion that Staller met or exceeded each requirement of the solicitation, and offered valuable additional benefits. [2] For example, the record shows that Staller's quoted system included metal end brackets and was found to maximize floor space. In contrast, the agency found that Spacesaver's system either did not meet the solicitation requirements--for example, the end panels were high-pressure laminate rather than metal, as required--or was not of the same quality as Staller's--for example, the weapon holders were plastic-coated metal, which could lead to rusting if the plastic wore off, rather than solid plastic. Spacesaver asserts that the agency advised it verbally that high-pressure laminate end panels would be acceptable. However, as noted above, the RFQ specifically provided that high pressure laminate end panels were not permitted. Oral advice that conflicts with the unambiguous terms of a solicitation is not binding on the government and a protester relies on such advice at its own risk. Southwest Educ. Dev. Lab., B-298259, July 10, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 105. Spacesaver also takes issue with the agency's conclusion that its metal-coated plastic units are not as good as Staller's units constructed solely of plastic.