B-299862, Charleston Marine Containers, Inc., August 30, 2007

B-299862 Aug 30, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Charleston Marine Containers, Inc. (CMCI) protests the issuance of a delivery order to Sea Box, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPM8ED-07-Q-0336, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, for Tricon II cargo containers. The protester principally maintains that the Sea Box container was improperly approved by the agency. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299862, Charleston Marine Containers, Inc., August 30, 2007 Decision Matter of: Charleston Marine Containers, Inc. File: B-299862 Date: August 30, 2007 Mike Szathmary, Charleston Marine Containers, Inc., for the protester. Bob Loughery, for Sea Box, Inc., an intervenor. Marlene Surrena, Esq., and Sharif T. Dawson, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's determination to approve successful vendor's product is denied where record shows that the agency's determination was reasonably based. DECISION Charleston Marine Containers, Inc. (CMCI) protests the issuance of a delivery order to Sea Box, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPM8ED-07-Q-0336, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, for Tricon II cargo containers. The protester principally maintains that the Sea Box container was improperly approved by the agency. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued May 7, 2007, sought quotes from two qualified sources to supply 9 Tricon II containers to be delivered within 10 days of award.[1] Quotations were to be submitted by May 9. The RFQ listed products of Sea Box and CMCI with their respective part numbers as approved, and also permitted evaluation of alternate products if a complete data package was furnished. Award was to be made based on vendors' prices and scores derived from the Automated Best Value System (ABVS). RFQ at 13. [2] The ABVS is an automated system which collects and analyzes vendors' past performance history for a specific period and translates it into a numeric score; it is based on considerations of delivery and quality. Sea Box and CMCI responded to the RFQ. Sea Box submitted a quote of $38,637 for its containers with a 10 day delivery schedule. CMCI submitted a quote of $46,039.77 with a 21 day delivery schedule. The contracting officer evaluated the quotes and the vendors' ABVS scores and issued an order to Sea Box on June 2. On June 8, CMCI filed this protest with our Office. In its initial protest, CMCI argues that the salient characteristics listed in the RFQ for a Tricon II container were in fact the salient characteristics of a Tricon I container. The protester also argues that, while it does not question whether the Sea Box Tricon II container satisfies the RFQ requirements, it maintains that the Sea Box container does not meet the higher quality and performance standards of a Tricon II container. To the extent the protester contends that the specifications for a Tricon II container were inaccurately listed in the RFQ or that the Sea Box container was improperly listed as an approved product, its protest is untimely. This Office's Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules requiring timely submission of protests. These rules require that protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to the deadline for receipt of offers or quotations must be filed before that time. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2007). Our timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement process. Dominion Aviation, Inc.-Recon., B-275419.4, Feb. 24, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 62 at 3. Here, since the specifications were clearly stated and the Sea Box product was identified as approved in the RFQ, any argument that the specifications were inaccurate or that the Sea Box container should not have been listed as an approved product was required to be raised in a protest filed before the deadline for receipt of quotations. Since CMCI did not protest until after the delivery order was issued, these arguments are untimely and will not be considered. In its comments submitted in response to the agency report, CMCI contends that the Sea Box product was not properly approved by the agency. Specifically, CMCI argues that the agency failed to follow the procedures for evaluating an –alternate product— in that Sea Box was not required to submit all drawings, specifications, or other data necessary to clearly describe the characteristics and features of the alternate being offered.[3] As a preliminary matter, we note that Sea Box was not offering an alternate product here.