TITLE:  Spacesaver Systems, Inc., B-284924; B-284924.2, June 20, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284924; B-284924.2
DATE:  June 20, 2000
**********************************************************************
Spacesaver Systems, Inc., B-284924; B-284924.2, June 20, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Spacesaver Systems, Inc.

File: B-284924; B-284924.2

Date: June 20, 2000

William J. Spriggs, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for the protester.

Jeffrey C. Morhardt, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency.

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly performed cost/technical tradeoff under a
best value acquisition approach for a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) purchase
without advising vendors of this evaluation method, is denied where record
shows that, in fact, agency did not conduct a best value evaluation or
perform a tradeoff; rather, agency rejected protester's lower-priced product
as unacceptable for failing to meet delivery requirements, and made award to
the FSS vendor offering to meet all requirements at the lowest overall cost
to the government.

DECISION

Spacesaver Systems, Inc. protests the Department of Education's (DOE) award
of two delivery orders to Capitol Office Systems, Inc. under that firm's
Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract for high density filing systems.
Spacesaver alleges that the agency improperly failed to make award to the
low-priced, technically acceptable firm, and also failed to afford it an
opportunity to respond to a revision to the agency's requirements.

We deny the protest.

The agency was interested in acquiring approximately 47,000 linear inches of
high density filing systems in connection with the move of the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) from one location in Washington, D.C.
to another. The agency decided to make its purchase from the FSS and
contacted five vendors, including the protester, that held current FSS
contracts for the filing systems. In this connection, the record shows that
on February 29, 2000 the agency provided the vendors (by facsimile) a
document entitled "Scope of Work" (SOW), which requested information from
the vendors regarding the requirement. [1] Of importance for purposes of the
protest, the SOW stated that the agency required the filing systems to be
installed by March 30 and April 6 (the two dates relate to systems to be
installed on two different floors of the NCES's new offices), and required
offerors to provide information regarding their proposed configurations by
March 3. SOW at 1. The SOW also specifically asked offerors to identify
separate costs associated with items that were not covered under their FSS
contracts. Id.

In response to the agency's request, Spacesaver submitted pricing and
configuration information. In the March 3 cover letter accompanying its
submission, Spacesaver advised the agency as follows:

In order to meet your deadlines . . . we are quoting all Quickship products.
These products are not available on [our FSS] contract at this time. . . .
In order for us to meet [the agency's delivery requirements], we will need
to have an order no later than Monday, March 6th. . . . For every day the
order is delayed after March 6 delivery and installation time will increase
by two days.

The only product we cannot deliver in time will be the full height locking
doors for the mobile systems on the 9th [floor]. These will be installed 7
weeks from the time of order.

Our standard products are available on [FSS] contract and we can offer them
to you on [FSS] contract, but they take 6 weeks to ship, plus installation
time.

(The record also shows that Spacesaver's submission to the agency was
unclear regarding whether its terms included the filing systems for one of
the rooms in question. Agency Report, Apr. 14, 2000, at 3.)

On March 9, subsequent to receiving information from the vendors, the agency
issued a document entitled "Modification to Scope of Work." In this
document, the agency advised vendors that the anticipated award date had
slipped a few days, that the agency now anticipated awarding the purchase
order on March 10, and that DOE needed revised information regarding the
vendors' installation schedules. This document was not provided to the
protester, apparently because of the statement in Spacesaver's original
submission that, even with its Quickship line of products (which were not
available under Spacesaver's FSS contract, and therefore could not properly
have been ordered by the agency), installation would be delayed an
additional 2 days for every day the order was delayed after March 6. Agency
Supplemental Report, May 24, 2000, at 1-2.

In response to the agency's notice of modification, the awardee advised the
agency that it could still meet the original delivery requirements of March
30 and April 6, but that it would do this by dividing the requirement among
the types of filing systems to be delivered (as opposed to the location of
the filing systems), installing one type of filing system by March 30 and
the other type by April 6. [2] On the basis of this revised information, the
agency made award to Capitol as the lowest-priced firm able to meet the
agency's requirements. The protester and one other vendor had offered
slightly lower prices, but DOE concluded that neither was capable of meeting
the agency's needs; the lowest-priced vendor was eliminated from further
consideration because its informational submission to the agency was so
deficient that DOE could not determine whether the firm's products would
meet its needs, and the protester was eliminated because of its inability to
meet the agency's delivery requirements using products available under its
FSS contract. Agency Report, Apr. 14, 2000, exh. 3, at 8.

Spacesaver argues that the award was improper because it was made on a best
value basis, with a price/technical tradeoff between Spacesaver's and
Capitol's systems, even though the request for information did not indicate
that this would be the basis for selection. The protester asserts that it
should have received the award because its acceptable system was priced
lower than Capitol's.

The protester's argument is based on two incorrect premises: (1) that the
agency made award on a best value basis, and (2) that its offered products
met all of the agency's material requirements at a lower price. As for the
first point, the record simply does not support the protester's claim. The
agency did not conduct a comparative, best value, evaluation, and did not
perform a price/technical tradeoff in selecting Capitol for award. Rather,
the agency determined which firm's system met its requirements at the lowest
price. This brings us to the second point. The record shows that
Spacesaver's offered FSS product did not meet the agency's needs in terms of
delivery schedule; as expressly noted in the firm's informational submission
to the agency, delivery under its FSS contract would take 6 weeks, with an
additional unspecified amount of time for installation. Consequently,
Spacesaver's products available under the FSS were noncompliant with a
material requirement, and the agency properly eliminated the firm from
further consideration.

Further, since DOE had determined that it would purchase from the FSS, it
was not required to consider Spacesaver's alternate offer of its Quickship
products, which were not available under its FSS contract. [3] See Sales
Resources Consultants, Inc., B-284943, B-284943.2, June 9, 2000, 2000 CPD
para. ___ at 3-4 (agency purchasing from FSS not required to consider non-FSS
alternatives); Delta Int'l, Inc., B-284364.2, May 11, 2000, 2000 CPD para. ___
at 3 (when placing an order under an FSS, agency is not required to seek
further competition). See also Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
sect. 8.404(a). In any case, Spacesaver's March 3 cover letter made it clear
that it could not meet the delivery requirements even with its Quickship
products if the award date were extended past March 6. It follows that,
since the awardee's filing system was the lowest overall cost product
available under the FSS that satisfied all of the agency's requirements, the
award to that firm was proper.

Spacesaver also alleges that the agency improperly failed to furnish it with
a copy of the March 9 modification; according to the protester, it may have
been able to satisfy the agency's modified delivery requirements if it had
been advised of the modification. This argument also is without merit. The
agency already knew from Spacesaver's initial submission that it could not
meet the delivery requirements with its FSS products, and, even if the
firm's non-FSS Quickship products otherwise properly could be considered,
Spacesaver already had expressly advised the agency that additional delivery
time would be needed if award were delayed past March 6. It follows that no
purpose would have been served by providing Spacesaver with the March 9
modification.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. On February 17, prior to giving the protester the SOW, the agency
conducted a walkthrough of the new office space with representatives of the
protester. Agency Report, Apr. 14, 2000, at 2 n.1.

2. We note that, although this installation plan differs somewhat from the
one the agency presented to the vendors, delivery and installation still
would be completed by the required March 30 and April 6 deadlines.

3. The protester argues that this was not an FSS buy or, at least, that
Spacesaver was not told it was an FSS buy. As noted above, Spacesaver's
March 3 cover letter appeared to recognize the agency's interest in an FSS
buy, and the protester has not explained what contractual basis it believed
the agency was using in this procurement, if not the FSS.