BNUMBER:  B-270483
DATE:  March 12, 1996
TITLE:  Design Contempo, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Design Contempo, Inc.

File:      B-270483

Date:March 12, 1996

Robert E. Gregg, Esq., Hazel & Thomas, for the protester.
Robert E. Young, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Under Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) purchase, agency met its 
responsibility to select the best value item at the lowest overall 
cost by issuing a request for quotations to gather additional 
information on competing products, comparing features of protester's 
offered items with those of another FSS vendor, and selecting that 
vendor after reasonably determining that protester's items did not 
possess certain required special features.

DECISION

Design Contempo, Inc. (DCI) protests the issuance of a Federal Supply 
Schedule (FSS) delivery order to Furniture by Thurston based upon its 
response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. N62604-95-T-D943, issued 
by the Department of the Navy for dormitory furniture.  DCI contends 
that the agency improperly determined that DCI's proposed items were 
not equal to Thurston's. 

We deny the protest.

The Navy requires various items of bedroom furniture for bachelor 
enlisted quarters (BEQ) at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, 
Virginia.  Prior to issuing any RFQ, the Navy contracted with an 
interior design firm, Hanbury, Evans, Newhill, Vlattas & Company 
(HENV), to develop an interior design for the BEQ rooms based on Navy 
requirements.  These requirements included items with extensive 
detailing, generally found on higher-priced furniture, to improve the 
quality of life in the BEQs.  In selecting furniture, HENV initially 
compared furniture and pricing for six FSS vendors, including Thurston 
and DCI.  HENV sent all six an RFQ with written specifications at the 
end of May.  After reviewing the vendors' submissions, HENV concluded 
that Thurston's furniture represented the best value, since its 
furniture met the most agency requirements at the lowest cost under 
the FSS.  Based upon HENV's recommendation, the contracting officer 
prepared to issue a delivery order to Thurston.  Before the delivery 
order was issued, DCI requested an opportunity to submit another quote 
for the requirement.  The contracting officer then issued a new RFQ, 
which referenced Thurston part numbers "or equal" and listed some, but 
not all, of the features of the Thurston furniture items. 

Thurston and DCI submitted their initial quotes in August, and after 
the agency requested clarification on some matters, their final quotes 
in September.  Thurston offered its FSS products for most of the items 
and provided "open market" quotes for four items (totaling less than 
$24,000), for a combined price of $300,609.60.  DCI's quote, with a 
price of $295,771, identified all of its items as FSS catalog 
products, but indicated that it had modified its standard products to 
match the specified Thurston part numbers.  Both HENV and the 
contracting officer's representative evaluated the vendors' 
submissions and compared the offered features.  Based upon this 
review, they determined that only Thurston's products met the Navy's 
requirements including function, maintenance, durability, and comfort.  
Accordingly, on September 27, the agency issued delivery orders to 
Thurston.  DCI protested to the Navy on October 11.  After the Navy 
denied its protest, DCI filed a protest with our Office.

DCI contends that the Navy erroneously determined that its products 
were not equal to the Thurston products.  In DCI's view, its furniture 
equals or exceeds Thurston's furniture in all areas and costs less.  
The Navy argues that it reasonably determined that only the Thurston 
furniture met its minimum needs.  We agree with the Navy.

The Competition in Contracting Act specifically provides that GSA's 
multiple award schedule program, of which the FSS is a part, is 
considered to be a competitive procedure, and purchasing from the 
schedule requires no further competition. 
10 U.S.C.  sec.  2302(2)(c) (1994); Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
6.102(d)(3).  When agency requirements are satisfied through the use 
of the FSS, ordering activities need not seek further competition, 
synopsize the requirement, make a separate determination of fair and 
reasonable pricing, or consider small business set-asides.  FAR  sec.  
8.404 (FAC 90-29).  See generally Mohawk Data Science Corp., 69 Comp. 
Gen. 13 (1989). 

Where, as here, the bulk of the items at issue are contained in a 
non-mandatory schedule, the decision whether to purchase an item from 
a vendor included on the schedule or to proceed with a new 
solicitation is a business judgment committed to the discretion of the 
contracting officer.  Mohawk Data Science Corp., supra; AMRAY, Inc., 
B-210490, Feb. 7, 1983, 83-1 CPD  para.  135.  To reasonably ensure that a 
selection represents the best value and meets the agency's needs at 
the lowest overall cost, ordering activities should consider GSA's 
automated multiple award schedule information system or at least three 
price lists.  FAR  sec.  8.404(b)(2)(i).  In selecting the best value items 
at the lowest overall cost, the activity may consider such factors as 
special features of one item not provided by comparable items which 
are required in effective program performance, probable life of the 
item compared with that of a comparable item, and warranty conditions.  
FAR  sec.  8.404(b)(2)(iii).  Further, the determination of the agency's 
minimum needs and which products on the FSS meet those needs is 
properly the agency's responsibility.  Herman Miller, Inc., B-230627, 
June 9, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  549.  Thus, our Office will only examine the 
agency's assessment of its needs to ensure that it had a reasonable 
basis.  National Mailing Sys., Inc., B-252578, July 13, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  
17.  

In view of the discretion afforded the agency in determining whether 
products meet its needs, we find the Navy's evaluation 
unobjectionable.  For example, the evaluators found Thurston's drawers 
to be superior in their construction and materials.  The Thurston 
drawer is constructed of six pieces (two sides, front, back, bottom, 
and separate decorative front), while DCI's are constructed of only 
five with the decorative front as an integral part of the drawer.  The 
separate front on the Thurston drawer allows simpler replacement of 
damaged fronts.  A comparably damaged DCI drawer front would require 
replacement of the entire drawer.  The Thurston drawer front also 
features a plunge design handle (made by routing a groove into the 
drawer front) which the Navy found superior to DCI's.  DCI had 
customized its quoted items to feature plunge pulls and furnished a 
sample, but the evaluators found that the sample showed a thinned area 
where too much wood had been routed out.  

The evaluators also found superior Thurston's water-based finish, 
applied to all components, prior to assembly, by a computer controled 
machine.  DCI applies its finish by hand once the furniture item is 
assembled.  The Navy concluded that the pre-assembly finishing was 
more advantageous because it ensured that swelling, shrinking, or 
shifting during shipment would not produce cracks in the finish.  The 
Navy believed that DCI's method could allow gaps in the finish as the 
product shifts in handling or swells due to humidity levels.  The 
evaluators also noted that when asked about warranties, Thurston had 
confirmed a 5-year warranty.  While DCI offered to match any 
competitor's warranty, it only confirmed its standard 2-year warranty. 

DCI argues that its drawer construction and finish are equal or 
superior to Thurston's.  DCI contends that its five-piece drawer 
construction is stronger than Thurston's, that it could correct any 
problems with the plunge drawer pulls, and that there is nothing wrong 
with its finishing process.  However, it has not submitted any 
evidence to establish that the agency's evaluations and conclusions 
were unreasonable.  DCI's arguments to the contrary simply represent 
its disagreement, which does not itself render the evaluation 
unreasonable.  Litton Sys., Inc., B-237596.3, Aug. 8, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  
115.

DCI also contends that the features upon which the Navy rejected its 
furniture were not listed as "salient characteristics" in the RFQ.  In 
the protester's view, it is unfair to eliminate it from consideration 
based on unstated requirements.  In this regard, DCI argues that it 
could have provided sufficient information to establish the equality 
or superiority of its products or otherwise sought to meet the 
requirements of the Navy.  We find nothing objectionable in the Navy's 
actions. 

Quotations in response to an RFQ are not offers that can be accepted 
by the government; rather, they are informational responses, 
indicating the products the vendors would propose to meet the agency's 
requirements and the prices of those products and related services 
that the government may use as the basis for issuing a delivery order 
to an FSS contractor.  Crown Furniture Mfg. Inc., B-225575, May 1, 
1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  456.  Thus, vendors responding to an agency's request 
for quotations for products on an FSS do not submit offers that define 
exactly what the vendor would supply at what price; that already is 
defined by their FSS contracts.  Since such requests are merely 
intended to identify suitable products available on the FSS, 
evaluation of the products is not limited to consideration of the 
requirements mentioned in a request for quotations.  Hugo Heyn Co., 
B-255329, 
Feb. 15, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  113; Datum Filing Sys., Inc., B-230886.2, 
July 28, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  97.

Here, the agency identified the Thurston FSS products meeting its 
minimum requirements and offered DCI the opportunity to establish that 
its FSS products were equal.  To this end, DCI used FSS product 
options and non-FSS custom adjustments to attempt to match Thurston's 
products as much as possible.  However, the products and any optional 
features placed on a vendor's schedule are intended to serve as 
essentially a catalogue of commercial products which can be chosen and 
ordered by the government, not starting points from which vendors may 
customize in order to match other vendors' products.  

Since the Navy reasonably found that Thurston's furniture offered 
features which it sought and which were not available on DCI's FSS 
contract furniture, it properly issued a delivery order to Thurston. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States