Kardex Remstar, LLC (SP3300-19-Q-5026)

B-418157 Jan 16, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kardex Remstar, LLC (Kardex), of Westbrook, Maine, protests the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order to Werres Corporation, of Frederick, Maryland, by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP3300-19-Q-5026, for commercial vertical lift module (VLM) storage systems. Kardex alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its lower-priced quotation as technically unacceptable and impermissibly issued the purchase order to a higher-priced vendor. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.       Decision Matter of:  Kardex Remstar, LLC File:  B-418157 Date:  January 16, 2020 Julie M. Nichols, Esq., and James S. Phillips, Esq., Roeder, Cochran, Phillips, PLLC, for the protester. Timothy J. Ryan, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation is denied because the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION   Kardex Remstar, LLC (Kardex), of Westbrook, Maine, protests the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order to Werres Corporation, of Frederick, Maryland, by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP3300-19-Q-5026, for commercial vertical lift module (VLM) storage systems.  Kardex alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its lower-priced quotation as technically unacceptable and impermissibly issued the purchase order to a higher-priced vendor. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on June 10, 2019, and subsequently amended twice, solicited quotations for a contractor to deliver and install four VLM storage systems at DLA’s distribution center located at Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, Texas.  The solicitation was issued pursuant to the commercial item acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6, and the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR subpart 13.5.  RFQ at 1.  The VLMs will be used to store small binnable parts for aircraft kitting operations.  Statement of Work (SOW) at 3.  The selected contractor will be required to deliver and install either its current, commercially designed and available product, or a commercial product that has been slightly modified to fit the proposed system.  Under the heading, 3.1 General Requirements, the solicitation stated that it will be the responsibility of the selected contractor to ensure that the final VLM design meets the “firm performance and Cyber Security requirements” of the solicitation and that “[a]lternate equipment and system architecture may be proposed by the contractor provided all firm performance requirements specified in Sections 1.3 through 1.4 and 3.1 through 3.4 are satisfied by the proposed design.”  Id. at 7.  As relevant, the performance requirements included:  (1) section 3.2.2, Vertical Lift Module; and (2) section 3.2.2.4, Dual Tray Delivery.  Id. at 16.  Only three sections of the SOW expressly allowed for alternative solutions:  for the treatment and painting of surfaces (section 3.1.2), for a self supporting structure (section 3.2.2.1), and for the size of the VLM units and trays (section 3.2.2.6).  Id. at 7, 16, 17. The RFQ stated that the purchase order would be issued to the vendor that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation.  RFQ at 20.  Quotations would be evaluated based on three evaluation factors:  past performance, technical/business, and price.  Id. at 21-22.  The technical/business evaluation factor was comprised of the following subfactors:  (a) project management plan; (b) organizational structure and qualifications; (c) system layout design; (d) reliability/maintainability; and (e) differences/exceptions.  Id. at 21.  The solicitation provided that quotations would be evaluated under the past performance and technical/business evaluation factors on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id. at 20. With respect to the technical/business quotation, the solicitation advised that this factor:  relates to the project design and performance requirements described in the SOW and associated drawings; concerns what the vendor proposes to do and how it will get done; and, includes the vendor’s capabilities, plans, key personnel, labor and equipment resources, and subcontracting efforts.  Id.