TITLE: B-298881, Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc., December 11, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298881
DATE: December 11, 2006
*************************************************************
B-298881, Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc., December 11, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc.

   File: B-298881

   Date: December 11, 2006

   Jane Glass for the protester.

   John R. Cohn, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency.

   Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that procuring agency improperly accepted higher-priced quotation
   over protester's lower-priced, technically acceptable quotation is denied
   where solicitation called for a vendor selection on "best value" basis and
   agency reasonably determined that awardee's quoted product was superior to
   protester's such that paying higher price was warranted.

   DECISION

   Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order
   to Staller Enterprises, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
   144228, issued by the U. S. Marine Corps for weapons storage systems.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ provided for issuance of an order on a "best value" basis applying
   the following evaluation factors (in descending order of importance):
   technical aspects, quality, delivery, final installation date, past
   performance, and price. With respect to the technical aspects factor, the
   quoted storage racks were required to meet six requirements: able to
   accommodate high security locks; rust resistant; non-marring weapon
   holders; metal end panels (high pressure laminate not permitted); locked
   racks not accessible from the front, back, top or sides; and each rack
   capable of operating independently. The RFQ further provided that the
   agency did not intend to hold discussions before selecting a vendor.

   Spacesaver and Staller submitted quotations.[1] The Corps found that
   Staller's product met or exceeded all technical requirements and was
   superior in design, materials, and durability to Spacesaver's, and that
   Staller provided the most comprehensive installation plan. In contrast,
   the agency found that Spacesaver's product suffered from deficiencies,
   including racks that could not be secured by high security locks, high
   pressure laminate rather than the required metal end panels, and weapon
   holders constructed of metal coated with plastic, which would wear and
   cause metal to metal contact and result in rusting. Based on this
   evaluation, the agency selected Staller's quotation as offering the best
   value to the government despite its higher price. Spacesaver protests that
   selection, arguing that its quotation should have been selected because it
   was technically acceptable and lower priced.

   Where, as here, a solicitation states that the agency will select the
   quotation found to be most advantageous to the government, as opposed to
   selecting a quotation strictly on the basis of technical acceptability and
   lowest-price, the evaluation is not limited to determining whether a
   quotation is merely technically acceptable; rather, quotations may be
   further differentiated to distinguish their relative quality by
   considering the degree to which the quotations exceed the stated minimum
   requirements or will better satisfy the agency's requirements. Chicago
   Dryer Co., B-293940, June 30, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 137 at 4.

   Here, the agency selected Staller's quotation over Spacesavers based on
   its conclusion that Staller met or exceeded each requirement of the
   solicitation, and offered valuable additional benefits. [2] For example,
   the record shows that Staller's quoted system included metal end brackets
   and was found to maximize floor space. In contrast, the agency found that
   Spacesaver's system either did not meet the solicitation requirements--for
   example, the end panels were high-pressure laminate rather than metal, as
   required--or was not of the same quality as Staller's--for example, the
   weapon holders were plastic-coated metal, which could lead to rusting if
   the plastic wore off, rather than solid plastic.

   Spacesaver asserts that the agency advised it verbally that high-pressure
   laminate end panels would be acceptable. However, as noted above, the RFQ
   specifically provided that high pressure laminate end panels were not
   permitted. Oral advice that conflicts with the unambiguous terms of a
   solicitation is not binding on the government and a protester relies on
   such advice at its own risk. Southwest Educ. Dev. Lab., B-298259, July 10,
   2006, 2006 CPD para. 105. Spacesaver also takes issue with the agency's
   conclusion that its metal-coated plastic units are not as good as
   Staller's units constructed solely of plastic. However, the agency's
   rationale--that the plastic could wear off during use and subject the
   exposed metal to rusting and marring--appears reasonable, and Spacesaver's
   mere disagreement is not sufficient to establish that the agency
   unreasonably determined that Staller's plastic units are less likely to
   present these problems. See Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., B-298694
   et al., Nov. 16, 2006, 2006 CPD para. __.[3]

   Since the competing firms were specifically advised that this was a best
   value acquisition, there was nothing improper in the agency's making these
   qualitative distinctions between the quotations, or in its determining
   that Staller's higher-priced quotation represented the best value
   considering price and non-price factors.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] Spacesaver submitted two quotations, one was for an automated system
   and one for a less expensive manually operated system. The agency
   preferred the automated system and therefore evaluated that quotation.

   [2] Our discussion here is general in nature because Staller's quotation
   appears to contain information about its system that is proprietary to the
   firm. We did not issue a protective order in connection with this
   protest--under which such information would have been available to counsel
   admitted to the protective order--because Spacesaver elected not to retain
   counsel. Consequently, only a redacted version of the agency report was
   furnished to Spacesaver. Nonetheless, we have carefully reviewed the
   entire record in camera, including all of the agency's evaluation
   materials and the quotations submitted by the firms. DSC Cleaning, Inc.,
   B-292125, June 25, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 118 at 2 n.2.

   [3] Spacesaver asserts that the agency should have discussed the evaluated
   deficiencies with the firm. Where, as here, a solicitation provides for
   award without discussions, an agency may make award without discussions,
   unless discussions are determined to be necessary. See Sierra Military
   Health Servs., Inc.; Aetna Gov't Health Plans, B-292780 et al., Dec. 5,
   2003, 2004 CPD para. 55 at 6-7 n.5; Facilities Mgmt. Co., Inc.,
   B-259731.2, May 23, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 274 at 8. The Corps decided that
   it did not require further information to determine which quotation
   represented the best value to the government.