Phoenics Corporation

B-414995 Oct 27, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Phoenics Corporation, a small business located in Washington, D.C., protests the rejection of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N40192-17-Q-7029, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas, for a ground penetrating radar (GPR) unit. The protester contends that the Navy improperly determined that Phoenics' proposed GPR unit did not meet the solicitation's salient characteristics. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Phoenics Corporation File:  B-414995 Date:  October 27, 2017 Alfred Firmani, for the protester. Jackie Schaefer for RJS Guam, LLC, the intervenor. John V.R. Aguon, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s determination that protester’s quotation was technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Phoenics Corporation, a small business located in Washington, D.C., protests the rejection of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N40192‑17‑Q‑7029, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas, for a ground penetrating radar (GPR) unit.  The protester contends that the Navy improperly determined that Phoenics’ proposed GPR unit did not meet the solicitation’s salient characteristics. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, which was set aside for small businesses, was issued as a commercial item acquisition under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6 and part 13 to procure, on a brand name or equal basis, a GPR unit for Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFQ, at 1‑2; app. 1, Specifications, at 1‑2.  The solicitation identified three manufacturers’ models as brand name equipment and listed several salient characteristics that had to be satisfied by any other GPR offered as equal to the brand name models.  Id.  As relevant here, the specifications state that the GPR, “[m]ust have an external and removable locking pin to hold arm secure whether in operation or storage mode.  An internal gear mechanism is not acceptable for this purchase.”[1]  Id.  The solicitation provided for the award of a fixed‑price purchase order on a lowest‑price, technically‑acceptable basis.  RFP, app. 2 at 5. The Navy received quotations from a number of vendors, including Phoenics and the awardee, RJS Guam, LLC, of Hagatna, Guam. [2]  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) ¶ 5.  The agency determined that Phoenics’ proposed unit did not meet the RFQ’s specification for an external locking pin and was therefore technically unacceptable.  Id. ¶ 6; AR, Tab 10, Price Reasonableness Memorandum (PRM), at 2.  While Phoenics submitted the lowest-priced quotation of $17,500, since the firm’s proposal was found to be technically unacceptable, the Navy instead made award to RJS, as the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable offeror, with a price of $26,994.50.  Id. at 3-4; AR, Tab 15, Award Notice, at 1. This protest followed. DISCUSSION Phoenics argues that the product the firm offered is equivalent to the brand name specified by the RFQ, and that “[a]ncillarly features are equal or exceed those of the brand name product.”  Protest at 2.  The agency responds that Phoenics’ proposed GPR was unacceptable because the firm’s equipment did not have an external and removable locking pin as required by the RFP.  Memorandum of Law (MoL) at 3.  Our review of the record does not cause us to question the agency’s determination that Phoenics’ quotation was technically unacceptable. In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals, nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion.  Analytical Innovative Solutions, LLC, B-408727, Nov. 6, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 263 at 2.  Rather, we will review the record only to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and with applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  Id. Here, the RFQ required the GPR to have “an external and removable locking pin to hold arm secure whether in operation or storage mode.”[3]  RFQ, app.