TITLE: B-299862, Charleston Marine Containers, Inc., August 30, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299862
DATE: August 30, 2007
*************************************************************
B-299862, Charleston Marine Containers, Inc., August 30, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Charleston Marine Containers, Inc.

   File: B-299862

   Date: August 30, 2007

   Mike Szathmary, Charleston Marine Containers, Inc., for the protester.

   Bob Loughery, for Sea Box, Inc., an intervenor.

   Marlene Surrena, Esq., and Sharif T. Dawson, Esq., Defense Logistics
   Agency, for the agency.

   Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging agency's determination to approve successful vendor's
   product is denied where record shows that the agency's determination was
   reasonably based.

   DECISION

   Charleston Marine Containers, Inc. (CMCI) protests the issuance of a
   delivery order to Sea Box, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
   SPM8ED-07-Q-0336, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply
   Center Philadelphia, for Tricon II cargo containers. The protester
   principally maintains that the Sea Box container was improperly approved
   by the agency.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ, issued May 7, 2007, sought quotes from two qualified sources to
   supply 9 Tricon II containers to be delivered within 10 days of award.[1]
   Quotations were to be submitted by May 9. The RFQ listed products of Sea
   Box and CMCI with their respective part numbers as approved, and also
   permitted evaluation of alternate products if a complete data package was
   furnished. Award was to be made based on vendors' prices and scores
   derived from the Automated Best Value System (ABVS). RFQ at 13. [2] The
   ABVS is an automated system which collects and analyzes vendors' past
   performance history for a specific period and translates it into a numeric
   score; it is based on considerations of delivery and quality.

   Sea Box and CMCI responded to the RFQ. Sea Box submitted a quote of
   $38,637 for its containers with a 10 day delivery schedule. CMCI submitted
   a quote of $46,039.77 with a 21 day delivery schedule. The contracting
   officer evaluated the quotes and the vendors' ABVS scores and issued an
   order to Sea Box on June 2. On June 8, CMCI filed this protest with our
   Office.

   In its initial protest, CMCI argues that the salient characteristics
   listed in the RFQ for a Tricon II container were in fact the salient
   characteristics of a Tricon I container. The protester also argues that,
   while it does not question whether the Sea Box Tricon II container
   satisfies the RFQ requirements, it maintains that the Sea Box container
   does not meet the higher quality and performance standards of a Tricon II
   container.

   To the extent the protester contends that the specifications for a Tricon
   II container were inaccurately listed in the RFQ or that the Sea Box
   container was improperly listed as an approved product, its protest is
   untimely. This Office's Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules
   requiring timely submission of protests. These rules require that protests
   based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent
   prior to the deadline for receipt of offers or quotations must be filed
   before that time. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1)
   (2007). Our timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of giving
   parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests
   expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement
   process. Dominion Aviation, Inc.-Recon., B-275419.4, Feb. 24, 1998, 98-1
   CPD para. 62 at 3. Here, since the specifications were clearly stated and
   the Sea Box product was identified as approved in the RFQ, any argument
   that the specifications were inaccurate or that the Sea Box container
   should not have been listed as an approved product was required to be
   raised in a protest filed before the deadline for receipt of quotations.
   Since CMCI did not protest until after the delivery order was issued,
   these arguments are untimely and will not be considered.

   In its comments submitted in response to the agency report, CMCI contends
   that the Sea Box product was not properly approved by the agency.
   Specifically, CMCI argues that the agency failed to follow the procedures
   for evaluating an "alternate product" in that Sea Box was not required to
   submit all drawings, specifications, or other data necessary to clearly
   describe the characteristics and features of the alternate being
   offered.[3]

   As a preliminary matter, we note that Sea Box was not offering an
   alternate product here. The Sea Box container was approved by the agency
   prior to issuance of the RFQ and was specifically listed in the RFQ as an
   approved product.

   At best, the protester's arguments are limited to a challenge to the
   adequacy of the agency's review of the Sea Box product.[4]

   A contracting agency has the primary responsibility for determining its
   minimum needs and for determining whether a previously unapproved product
   will satisfy those needs, since it must bear the burden of difficulties
   incurred by reason of a defective evaluation. Chromalloy Gas Turbine
   Corp., B-234272, May 17, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 474 at 2. Whether a vendor
   seeking approval of its product has submitted sufficient information to
   convince the agency that it will meet the agency's minimum needs is
   essentially a technical judgment committed to the agency's discretion, id.
   at 3, which we will not disturb unless it is unreasonable. Service & Sales
   Inc., B-247673, June 29, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 545 at 3. A protester's mere
   disagreement with an agency's technical judgment does not render the
   judgment unreasonable and does not provide a legal basis for sustaining a
   protest. Astrosystems, Inc., B-261673.2, Dec. 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 267
   at 4.

   The agency reports that it reviewed the technical data package (TDP)
   submitted by Sea Box to determine if it was equal to the technical
   requirements set forth in the Purchase Item Description (PID) for the
   Tricon II container. AR.,Tab 8, Declaration of Product Specialist. The
   agency's review consisted of comparing all physical and salient
   characteristics listed in the TDP with those set forth in the PID for
   exact conformance. The agency further reports that it compared the Sea Box
   Tricon II to the CMCI Tricon II from information available from both
   vendors. Specifically, the agency reviewed the Sea Box catalogue page
   which contained dimensional characteristics and data indicating the Sea
   Box container was manufactured to the latest International Organization of
   Standardization (ISO) standards applicable to these containers. The agency
   concluded that both containers were manufactured to the latest ISO
   standards, were dimensionally the same, and met or exceeded the
   government's minimum needs. On this basis, the agency concluded that the
   Sea Box container met all of the government's requirements, including the
   salient characteristics listed in the PID, and therefore that the
   container was properly included as an approved Tricon II container. Id.[5]

   Here, we have no basis to question the agency's decision to grant approval
   for the Sea Box container. While CMCI challenges the adequacy of the
   documentation used by DLA in evaluating the acceptability of the Sea Box
   container, CMCI's concerns fall short of establishing that the agency's
   determination was unreasonable. At best, the protest arguments constitute
   technical disagreements which do not provide a basis for the protester to
   prevail on this matter.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] A Tricon II container is a cube-shaped container that has a set of
   doors on both ends. The agency reports that "Tricon" is a common generic
   term used in the container industry to refer to a specific type of cargo
   container. Agency Report (AR) at 2.

   [2] We recognize that this protest involves an RFQ; however, the agency
   throughout its procurement record uses award language. We will retain the
   award language for consistency with the underlying record.

   [3] To the extent the protester argues that the Sea Box container violates
   the protester's patent, this issue is not for our consideration. Lab
   Prods., Inc., B-252452, Mar. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 250 at 4. A patent
   holder's remedy for any alleged government violation of its patent rights,
   resulting from a government procurement, is a suit for money damages
   against the government before the United States Court Federal Claims. See
   28 U.S.C. sect. 1498(a) (2000); Diversified Technologies; Almon A.
   Johnson, Inc., B-236035, Nov. 6, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 427 at 3.

   [4] We view CMCI's challenge to the adequacy of the agency's approval of
   the Sea Box container as timely since the protester indicates that this
   challenge is based on its examination of a photograph of the Sea Box
   container it received on June 10, 2007 that presumably indicates that the
   Sea Box container does not satisfy the requirements of a Tricon II
   container and on information contained in the agency report submitted in
   response to the protest.

   [5] In fact, the protester in its comments to the agency report
   specifically states that its protest was not that the Sea Box product did
   not meet the salient characteristics of the purchase order, but rather
   that the RFQ mistakenly listed the salient characteristics for the Tricon
   I container instead of the Tricon II. As previously stated, any challenge
   to the solicitation is untimely. Moreover, both vendors submitted quotes
   for their respective Tricon II containers.