BNUMBER:  B-275076
DATE:  January 21, 1997
TITLE:  Safety Storage, Inc.

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

Matter of:Safety Storage, Inc.

File:     B-275076

Date:January 21, 1997

Samuel Z. Gdanski, Esq., for the protester.
LTC David D. Franke, Capt. Robert C. Spinelli and Joseph H. Doyle, 
Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Where request for quotations issued under small purchase 
procedures did not contain a late quotations provision, agency 
properly permitted a quoter to submit, after the closing date, 
additional evidence of its compliance with solicitation's warranty 
requirement.

2.  Protest that agency improperly waived floor load and interior 
square footage criteria for awardee is denied where:  (1) record shows 
that awardee's design fully complies with floor load requirement; and 
(2) difference in interior square footage is slight, the awardee's 
product meets the agency's needs, and waiver of the requirement did 
not prejudice the protester.

DECISION

Safety Storage, Inc. (SSI) protests the award of a contract to LAMCO 
Industries under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DABT01-96-T-0018, 
issued by the Department of the Army for six steel prefabricated 
storage sheds for the 209th Military Police Company at Fort McClellan, 
Alabama.  SSI contends that the Army improperly accepted a late 
submission from LAMCO and otherwise waived the solicitation's 
specified floor load and interior square footage requirements.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ was conducted as a brand name or equal small purchase 
procurement under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  13.103(g). 
The solicitation's amended purchase item description identified the 
required shed by means of the protester's brand name and product 
number, and--of significance to this protest--required the shed to 
have an interior square footage of 198 feet, a "uniformly distributed 
[floor] load [capacity] of 500 p.s.f. [pounds per square foot],"  and 
a 10-year structural warranty.  The solicitation advised quoters of 
"equal" shed models to submit "specification sheets" demonstrating 
compliance with the RFQ's purchase item description.

By the September 18, 1996 closing date, eight quotations were 
received.  Five firms--including LAMCO--submitted quotations for shed 
model "Haz-Stor LK 1024"; one submitted a quotation for shed model 
"CBS-8-20."  Two other offerors--including the protester--submitted 
quotations for the specified brand name:  Safety Storage Shed Model 
22N.

Although the protester's quotation was the lowest-priced, brand-name 
quotation, on October 3 the Army issued a purchase order to LAMCO for 
its lowest-priced, functionally equivalent ("equal") shed.  On October 
11, SSI filed this protest.

The record shows that on September 23, the Army requested a copy of 
SSI's 10-year structural warranty.  In its protest, SSI contends that 
the Army improperly permitted LAMCO to submit evidence of its 
compliance with the RFQ's structural warranty requirement after the 
September 18 closing date.  SSI also maintains that the Haz-Stor model 
proposed by LAMCO does not comply with either the solicitation's floor 
load capacity requirement or the interior square footage 
requirement.[1]

SSI's challenge to the Army's decision to accept a post-closing date 
submission from LAMCO is without merit.  Agencies may use simplified 
procedures that "promote competition to the maximum extent 
practicable" for small purchases of property and services not expected 
to exceed $100,000.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(g) (1994); 41 U.S.C.  sec.  403(11) 
(1994).  Under these procedures, agencies generally may seek and 
consider revisions to a quotation any time prior to the government's 
issuance of a purchase order.  See DataVault Corp., B-248664, Sept. 
10, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  166.  This is because, unlike a request for 
proposals or an invitation for bids, an RFQ does not seek offers that 
can be accepted by the government to form a contract.  Rather, the 
government's purchase order is the offer which the proposed supplier 
may accept through performance or by a formal acceptance document.  
FAR  sec.  13.108.  Moreover, where, as here, an RFQ does not contain a 
late quotations provision--but merely requests quotations by a certain 
date--that date is not considered to be a firm closing deadline.  See 
A & B Trash Serv., B-250322, Jan. 22, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  53.  Thus, the 
Army's decision in this case to permit LAMCO to submit evidence of its 
compliance with the RFQ's structural warranty requirement is 
unobjectionable.[2]

SSI next contends that the awardee's proposed shed does not meet the 
RFQ's 500 p.s.f. floor capacity specification.  SSI bases its argument 
on a simple computation; dividing the awardee's advertised storage 
capacity (49,000 pounds) by its interior square footage (196[3]), SSI 
argues that the resulting number--250--represents the maximum floor 
load capacity of the Haz-Stor shed.  

Although the record indicates that the protester's calculation is a 
reasonable method for roughly calculating the shed's floor load 
capacity, the manufacturer of LAMCO's proposed shed--Haz-Stor 
Company--and the Army point out that other factors affect the floor 
capacity calculation in any particular case.  Specifically, the record 
shows that both the grating material--which supports the shed's 
foundation--and the proximity of the floor support joint spans--which 
support the shed's structure--significantly affect the load the shed 
will bear; that is, a less durable grating material (e.g., wood) and 
wide spaces between joint spans will result in a diminished floor load 
capacity, whereas a heavier grating material (e.g., steel) and small 
widths between joint spans will enable the shed to support a much 
heavier uniform floor load.  In this case, Haz-Stor's submissions show 
that the combination of the shed's grating material and joint span 
placement support a uniform floor load of 975 p.s.f.; consequently, we 
deny this protest ground.[4]

With regard to SSI's interior square footage argument, the record does 
show that despite the RFQ's stated requirement for an interior storage 
area of 198 square feet, the awardee's Haz-Stor shed offers an 
interior storage area of only 196 square feet.  Generally, where a 
solicitation sets forth design features in very specific terms, 
offerors of an equal product must meet them precisely.  Ross Cook, 
Inc., B-231686, Sept. 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  216.  However, if the 
discrepancy between the offered equal product and the stated brand 
name is minor, and the offered product will meet the agency's needs, a 
minor deviation in an offered equal product may be waived if there is 
no prejudice to the other offerors.  Defense FAR Supplement  sec.  
211.270-1(b)(3); CryoMed, B-241605, Feb. 22, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  202.

The Army reports that the slight variation in the Haz-Stor shed's 
interior square footage (2 feet) does not affect the suitability of 
the shed for its intended purpose of storing small quantities of 
petroleum products and related equipment.  Moreover, despite specific 
requests from this Office for a showing of prejudice, SSI has failed 
to articulate how it would have altered its quotation had it known 
that a slightly smaller interior storage area of 196 square feet would 
meet the Army's needs.  Under these circumstances, the Army's 
acceptance of LAMCO's offered Haz-Stor shed is unobjectionable.  
DataVault Corp., supra.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. SSI also contends that LAMCO's offered shed does not possess the 
identical corrosion protection system offered by the specified SSI 
model; however, the solicitation did not require the SSI corrosion 
system.  In this regard, amendment No. 0001 to the RFQ changed the 
corrosion protection requirement from SSI's design specification of 
"corrosion protected steel; [United Laboratory] classified two-hour 
fire-rated" to a more generic requirement for unspecified "special 
coatings" to "minimize wear [and] corrosion" and "to reduce heat 
absorption." 

2. SSI also contends that LAMCO's quotation failed to include 
sufficient descriptive data.  However, where the descriptive 
literature submitted with an offer does not show compliance, the 
contracting agency may base a determination of acceptability on "any 
other information available to the contracting agency," even if that 
information was not included in the offer.  See Barnard & Assocs., 
B-253367, Sept. 13, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  157.  In this case, the Army was 
able to evaluate LAMCO's offered shed based on descriptive literature 
set forth in the Army's contracting files, as well as descriptive data 
included with other quotations submitted for the same Haz-Stor shed 
model under this procurement.

3. The protester argues that some of the descriptive literature 
regarding the awardee's proposed shed suggests an interior square 
footage of 181 or 191 square feet.  Our Office has confirmed that 
these measurements do not pertain to the shed model quoted by the 
awardee.  In this regard, Haz-Stor manufactures many different 1024 
shed types--each 1024 model has a different wall thickness (in part 
depending on its required features, e.g., combustion protection) and 
therefore a different interior square footage.  For this procurement, 
LAMCO submitted its quote based on the Haz-Stor LK1024 shed 
model--which has an interior square footage area of 196 square feet.

4. Because Haz-Stor considers its grating material and joint span 
placement to be proprietary information, our description of Haz-Stor's 
submission is necessarily general.  In this regard, while SSI did not 
have access to the details of Haz-Stor's design, it was on notice of 
the agency's general position that the grating material and joint span 
placement affect the floor load capacity, and thus that SSI's simple 
calculation, without taking into account these factors, did not 
represent an accurate measurement of floor load capacity.  SSI did not 
attempt to refute the agency's position.