BNUMBER:  B-278125 
DATE:  December 1, 1997
TITLE: Green Shop, Inc., B-278125, December 1, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Green Shop, Inc.

File:     B-278125

Date:December 1, 1997

Philip Kircher for the protester.
Capt. William R. Hinchman, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rejected the protester's proposal as technically 
unacceptable where the protester took exception in its proposal to 
material specification requirements as contained in the solicitation.

DECISION

Green Shop, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Arctic Industrial 
& Automotive Supply under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAHC76-97-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army for a quantity 
of biodegradable parts washers.  The protester challenges the 
rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, as amended, provided that the award would be made to the 
offeror submitting the low-priced, technically acceptable proposal.  
The RFP stated that in determining the technical acceptability of a 
proposal, the agency would evaluate an offeror's compliance with the 
specifications and the required delivery schedule.  Among other 
things, the specifications for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002 required 
that the cabinets of the parts washers be constructed of a minimum of 
11-gauge steel and that the water tanks be constructed of stainless 
steel.  For line item No. 0001, the specifications also required a 
production capacity of 200 gallons per minute and for line item No. 
0002, the specifications required a production capacity of 80 gallons 
per minute.

The agency rejected the protester's lower-priced proposal as 
technically unacceptable for failing to comply with the 
specifications.  In its amended proposal, for line item Nos. 0001 and 
0002, the protester proposed to furnish parts washers constructed of 
thinner 12-gauge steel, instead of thicker 11-gauge steel as required 
by the specifications.  The protester also proposed steel water tanks 
instead of the required stainless steel water tanks.  In addition, for 
line item No. 0001, the protester proposed a pump with a capacity of 
150 gallons per minute, despite the protester's recognition that 
"[t]he requirements call[ed] for a unit producing 200 [gallons per 
minute]," and for line item No. 0002, the protester proposed a pump 
with a capacity of 52 gallons per minute which it claims "could come 
close to the requested 80 [gallons per minute]."

In a negotiated procurement, a proposal that fails to conform to 
material solicitation requirements is technically unacceptable and 
cannot form the basis for award.  See International Sales Ltd., 
B-253646, Sept. 7, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  146 at 2.  Here, the protester 
clearly took exception to material solicitation requirements, thus 
rendering its proposal technically unacceptable.

The protester concedes that it did not satisfy all of the 
specification requirements, stating that "we met or exceeded almost 
every specification and requirement.  Those specifications that we did 
not meet to the letter, we met on industry standards and are of little 
consequence."  (Emphasis added.)  The protester has failed to provide 
any "industry standards" for the specification requirements it did not 
satisfy and it offered no explanation for why its failure to satisfy 
these requirements "are of little consequence."  We agree with the 
agency that the protester took exception in its amended proposal to 
material specification requirements, thereby rendering its proposal 
technically unacceptable and making the firm ineligible for award.

The protester also complains that the awardee's proposal should have 
been rejected as technically unacceptable because the awardee proposed 
a pump that allegedly did not meet the specifications.  The 
protester's sole support for this contention is the fact that, while 
for line item No. 0002 the RFP required a 208-volt pump, the awardee 
proposed a 220-volt pump.

However, the protester is not an interested party eligible to 
challenge the contract award on the basis that the awardee failed to 
submit a technically acceptable proposal.  Under our Bid Protest 
Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.1(a) (1997), only an interested party may 
protest a federal procurement.  That is, a protester must be an actual 
or prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be 
affected by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a 
contract.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a).  A protester is not an interested party 
where it would not be in line for award were its protest to be 
sustained.  See Marine Pollution Control Corp., B-270172, Feb. 13, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  73 at 3-4.  In this case, out of 22 proposals 
received, the agency determined that three proposals, but not the 
protester's, were technically acceptable.  Because there were two 
other technically acceptable proposals besides the awardee's proposal 
eligible for award, the protester, whose proposal was properly 
rejected as technically unacceptable, is not an interested party to 
challenge the award.  Id.

In any event, the agency explains that it is common industry practice 
for the stated voltage of commercial/industrial motors to be 
acceptable within a 10-percent range (to support its position, the 
agency submitted a product catalog showing that pump voltage is listed 
as a range).  The agency points out that the protester obviously 
shares this view, since, for line item No. 0001, for which the RFP 
required a 220-volt pump, the protester proposed a 230-volt pump 
(which the agency determined was technically acceptable as it was 
within the 10-percent range).  The protester does not rebut the 
agency's position.  On this record, we conclude that the agency 
treated the protester and the awardee equally with respect to the 
technically acceptability of their proposed pumps in terms of voltage 
requirements.  Accordingly, we have no basis to object to the agency's 
conclusion that the awardee's 220-volt pump for line item No. 0002 was 
technically acceptable as it was within the 10-percent range.[1]

The protest is denied.[2]

Comptroller General
of the United States              

1. We do not believe that the protester's price list, which shows that 
its 208-volt pump is more expensive than its 230-volt pump, is 
relevant to the agency's determination that an offeror's proposed pump 
was technically acceptable as to the voltage requirement if its 
voltage was within 10 percent of the RFP specification.  

2. There is no support in the record for the protester's allegation 
that a named agency employee was in contact with the awardee for 
several years about this project and that "this camaraderie may have 
given Arctic an unfair advantage in this competition."  The record 
shows that the individual named by the protester was a utilities 
engineer who did not have any involvement in equipment procurements, 
including this procurement for parts washers.