BH, Inc. dba Britz & Company (NIMH-20-001641)

B-419163 Dec 17, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Britz & Company, a small business of Wheatland, Wyoming, protests the award of a contract to Lab Products, Inc., a small business of Seaford, Delaware, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIMH-20-001641, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Mental Health, for a quantity of Lenderking marmoset racks, cages, and excreta pans. Britz primarily argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Britz & Company File:  B-419163 Date:  December 17, 2020 William Britz, Britz & Company, for the protester. Giovanna Jean-Baptiste, Esq., and Tony A. Ross, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably evaluated the protester’s technical proposal, and the agency’s consideration of enhancements in evaluating the awardee’s proposal was consistent with the solicitation terms.    DECISION   Britz & Company, a small business of Wheatland, Wyoming, protests the award of a contract to Lab Products, Inc., a small business of Seaford, Delaware, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIMH-20-001641, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Mental Health, for a quantity of Lenderking marmoset racks, cages, and excreta pans.  Britz primarily argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP was issued as a small business set-aside on March 26, 2020, under the acquisition of commercial items and simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 12 and subpart 13.5.  Agency Report, Tab 3a, RFP at 3.  The solicitation called for 60 Lenderking marmoset racks, each with two cages, for a total of 120 cages, and 30 additional excreta pans.  AR, Tab 3b, RFP, amend. 1, attach. 6, Question & Answer Follow-Up at 1.  This equipment is for the agency’s Veterinary Medicine and Resource Branch, which supports investigators who use animals in their research into the causes, treatment, and prevention of mental health disorders.  AR, Tab 3b, RFP, amend. 1 at 8. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering four evaluation factors:  equipment capability, delivery, past performance, and cost/price.  AR, Tab 3b, RFP amend. 1 at 3, 5.  The non-cost/price factors were significantly more important than cost/price.  Id.  The agency used an adjectival rating scheme of excellent, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id.  The offered equipment was to be brand name-or-equal and be compatible with the agency’s existing Lenderking marmoset cages; prospective offerors were directed to a purchase description (PD) for a list of the equipment’s salient requirements.  AR, Tab 3a, RFP, attach. 1, PD at 1-2.  Under the equipment capability factor, the only one at issue here, the solicitation instructed that each firm “shall detail” in its technical proposal how it would meet each of the PD requirements.  AR, Tab 3a, RFP, amend. 1 at 10.  The solicitation stated that each proposal would be evaluated for the ways in which it “meets or exceeds” the PD requirements; “[e]xceeding requirements shall be considered favorably.”  Id. The PD set forth numerous specific salient requirements for the racks and cages.  Among these were that cages be made of stainless steel tubing welded water-tight; that racks be equipped with suspended runners under each cage to hold an excreta pan; and that cages have two perches at two different heights and locations.  In addition, the PD generally required that the racks be sufficiently robust to withstand the rigors of mechanical washers.  AR, Tab 3a, RFP, attach.