ThermoAir SprayBooth

B-411358 Jul 02, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ThermoAir Spray Booths of Sun Valley, California, a small business, protests the elimination of its quotation from award consideration under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911KF-15-Q-0011, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for four spray/bake booths at the Anniston Army Depot. The protester maintains that the agency unreasonably eliminated its quotation from consideration because it failed to include required technical literature. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: ThermoAir Spray Booths File: B-411358 Date: July 2, 2015 Sean Oliver, for the protester. Captain Kelly L. Sledgister, Department of the Army, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s rejection of the protester’s quotation for failing to provide required technical literature is denied where the record shows that the protester failed to include required technical literature, as well as other material information. DECISION ThermoAir Spray Booths of Sun Valley, California, a small business, protests the elimination of its quotation from award consideration under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911KF‑15‑Q‑0011, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for four spray/bake booths at the Anniston Army Depot. The protester maintains that the agency unreasonably eliminated its quotation from consideration because it failed to include required technical literature. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on January 8, 2015, under the commercial item provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, as a small business set-aside.[1] The solicitation anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract to provide four spray/bake booths.[2] The solicitation contemplated award on a best value basis, considering the following three factors: (1) technical, (2) past performance and (3) price. The technical factor had the following subfactors: (1) materials used for construction of spray/bake booths, including ductwork, (2) paint application equipment bill of materials, (3) safety circuit (hardware and software design for direct fired burner), and (4) design/control of modulating re-circulated air to exhaust during flash-off cycle. RFQ at 38. The technical factor was to be evaluated on a met/not-met basis, and, for purposes of award, past performance “[was] slightly more ‘important’” than price.[3] Id. at 39. As relevant here, vendors were instructed to include technical literature in their quotations, as follows: Proposals shall include catalogue pictures, drawings, literature, specifications, installation data and additional information, as applicable, to completely describe the system and its controls, instrumentation, performance, installation, warranty details and training procedures proposed to meet the requirements of this specification. Id. at 34. The RFQ included a related provision which stated that the technical literature must “show that the proposed equipment meets the requirements of the specification,” and the technical subfactors. RFQ at 60. This provision stated as follows: (b) The features [technical subfactors] required above to be shown in the technical literature are necessary to determine the offeror’s technical acceptance. If the offeror’s preprinted literature does not show all these features, the offeror may attach a letter or supplemental information to the literature describing those required features. All literature and supplemental information shall be in US Customary System of Measurements and in the English language. (c) The failure of technical literature to show that the product offered conforms to the requirements of this solicitation may require rejection of the offer. Id. at 60. The agency received eight quotations from seven vendors (one vendor submitted two quotations), including ThermoAir, by the February 27, amended due date for quotations.[4] Contracting Officer Statement at 5. One quotation was determined to be nonresponsive and excluded from further consideration. Id. The Army conducted written discussions with the vendors, including the protester. With respect to ThermoAir’s quotation, the agency raised 11 items for clarification and correction, including information on 3 subsystems: a backup air compressor, a burner, and a monorail with hoist. AR, Tab E.1, Agency Discussion Letter with ThermoAir (Mar. 17, 2015). Of relevance to this protest, the agency stated the following regarding the backup air compressor: There is no specific information included with your offer.