Altair Equipment Company, Inc. (FA4484-19-QA-018)

B-418303 Jan 29, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Altair Equipment Company, Inc., of Warminster, Pennsylvania, a small business, protests the award of a contract to The Maclean Group LLC, of Albany, California, also a small business, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA4484-19-QA-018, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a commercial mobile water demineralization unit for a power plant steam generating system at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, in New Jersey. Altair argues that the Air Force unreasonably rejected its quotation as technically unacceptable and improperly awarded the contract to Maclean at its higher price. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Altair Equipment Company, Inc. File:  B-418303 Date:  January 29, 2020 Donald R. Keer, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s quotation as unacceptable is denied where the solicitation specified that the equipment be mobile and the protester’s quotation expressly offered its existing stationary unit that it labeled an alternative solution.  DECISION Altair Equipment Company, Inc., of Warminster, Pennsylvania, a small business, protests the award of a contract to The Maclean Group LLC, of Albany, California, also a small business, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA4484-19-QA-018, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a commercial mobile water demineralization unit for a power plant steam generating system at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, in New Jersey.  Altair argues that the Air Force unreasonably rejected its quotation as technically unacceptable and improperly awarded the contract to Maclean at its higher price.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on August 29, 2019, was set aside for small businesses, and provided for a commercial item simplified acquisition.  The RFQ sought quotations to provide a mobile demineralization unit and service (including labor, equipment, supplies, management, etc.) to operate and regenerate the unit for an 11-month base period and 4 option years.  RFQ at 1; RFQ amend. 1 at 2.  Altair has been the incumbent contractor under a contract awarded in 2014.  The RFQ was set aside for small businesses and requested that the technical quotations address how the vendor proposed to perform the requirements.  For each performance period, the RFQ requested fixed prices for servicing the demineralizer and performing maintenance/regeneration service.  RFQ at 3-5.  Prices would be evaluated by adding the extended line prices for each performance period, and the RFQ specified that award would be made to the firm that submitted the lowest-priced technically acceptable quotation.  Id. at 8. The accompanying performance work statement (PWS) explained that the purpose of the RFQ was to obtain a mobile demineralization unit that would avoid the need to store and use hazardous materials on site, in particular by eliminating the need to have on hand sulfuric acid and, significantly reducing the amount of sodium hydroxide at the site.  RFQ at 22 (PWS ¶ 1).  The PWS set forth the agency’s requirements, among which were a mobile demineralizer unit that meets specific demineralization standards, and has the capability to process at least 600,000 gallons before requiring regeneration.  The PWS also required the contractor to perform regeneration of the unit off site and provide a freshly regenerated unit within 12 hours of removal of each outgoing unit.  RFQ at 22 (PWS ¶ 1.2), 27 (PWS appx. B).  The Air Force received timely quotations from Altair and Maclean.  Altair quoted the lower evaluated price of $347,000, but the agency’s evaluation determined that the technical approach was unacceptable.  Specifically, Altair’s quotation stated that under its incumbent contract, it had been providing “an alternative to the specified mobile unit,” and that it proposed to continue with the existing system.