B-299901.2, Safety Storage, Inc., December 3, 2007

B-299901.2 Dec 03, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Safety Storage, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Containment Consultants, Inc., d.b.a. Ideal Environmental Products (Ideal) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SB3100-7071-9501, issued by the Defense Logistic Agency for a modular pest control building. Safety contends that Ideal's proposed pest control building does not comply with the RFP's specifications. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299901.2, Safety Storage, Inc., December 3, 2007 Decision Matter of: Safety Storage, Inc. File: B-299901.2 Date: December 3, 2007 Kenneth Wilkins, Safety Storage, Inc., for the protester. Kristen Scibuola, for Containment Consultants, Inc., an intervenor. Daniel K. Poling, Esq., and Gwendolyn Hoover, 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 alleging awardee's noncompliance with mandatory technical requirements is denied where the record shows that the awardee's proposal was reasonably evaluated by the agency as meeting the requirements. DECISION Safety Storage, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Containment Consultants, Inc., d.b.a. Ideal Environmental Products (Ideal) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SB3100-7071-9501, issued by the Defense Logistic Agency for a modular pest control building. Safety contends that Ideal's proposed pest control building does not comply with the RFP's specifications. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on September 5, 2007 as a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12.6.[1] The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside and set forth the minimum requirements for the pest control building. Two of the requirements relevant to this protest are that: (1) the modular storage building must be approved by the Factory Mutual (FM) System as a relocatable hazardous materials storage unit in accordance with Flammable and Combustible Liquid Storage Building Standard 6049 (RFP at 2); and (2) the building must include a floor grating/secondary containment sump system with –a seamless acid/corrosive resistant high density polyethylene liner— (RFP at 3). The RFP provided for the evaluation of only two non-cost factors: technical capability and past performance. RFP at 4. Offerors were advised that technical capability would be evaluated on a go/no-go basis, and that those offerors whose proposals are found technically acceptable, would be reviewed to determine whether the offeror has a satisfactory record of past performance. Offerors were required to submit descriptive literature and other information that clearly indicated that the proposed pest control building satisfied all of the stated minimum technical requirements. Id. Award was to be made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer. Only Safety and Ideal submitted proposals in response to the RFP, and based on an initial review, the agency concluded that neither proposal was acceptable; instead, the agency decided that both proposals were –susceptible of being acceptable.— Agency Report (AR) Tab 5, Pest Control Proposals Evaluation. In this regard, the technical evaluator noted five deficiencies in Safety's proposal and one deficiency in Ideal's proposal. Discussions were held with both offerors so that the agency could identify, and the offerors could address, the evaluated deficiencies in their proposals. Of relevance here, Ideal's technical proposal was found unacceptable because Ideal did not clearly demonstrate that its offered spray-on liner met the criteria of the seamless acid/corrosive resistant high-density polyethylene liner required by the specification. In response to the agency's concerns, Ideal addressed the matter as follows: Ideal Environmental has several spray on coatings which are seamless and provide excellent acid/corrosive resistance. If awarded the contract we will offer the end user several options to choose from. These coatings are not susceptible to cracking and damage from rodents and are easier to clean. However if the end user requires a seamless acid/corrosive resistant high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner one will be provided per the minimum technical requirements stated in the combined synopsis/solicitation at no additional cost. AR, Tab 8, Ideal's Final Proposal Revision. After the evaluation of the offeror's final revised proposals, both Safety and Ideal received ratings of –go— for both technical capability and past performance. Safety proposed a price of $225,840.46 and Ideal's price was $206,000. Since Ideal offered the lowest price, award was made to Ideal on September 27.