B-214657, JUL 2, 1984, 84-2 CPD 7

B-214657, JUL 2, 1984, 84-2 CPD 7

CONTRACTS - REQUESTS FOR QUOTATIONS - SPECIFICATIONS - MINIMUM NEEDS REQUIREMENT - ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION - REASONABLENESS DIGEST: GAO WILL NOT DISTURB A PROCURING AGENCY'S DETERMINATION OF ITS NEEDS AND THE SPECIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO MEET THEM, OR THE AGENCY'S TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSED EQUIPMENT, ABSENT A CLEAR SHOWING BY THE PROTESTER THAT THE AGENCY HAS ACTED UNREASONABLY.

VENRAM INC.:

VENRAM INC. PROTESTS THE REJECTION OF ITS OFFER OF TWO ELECTRIC HOISTS UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS NO. F41687-84-OG148 ISSUED BY BERGSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS. WE DENY THE PROTEST.

NO SOLICITATION WAS ISSUED FOR THIS SMALL PURCHASE; INSTEAD, THE REQUIREMENT WAS SYNOPSIZED IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY (CBD), CALLING FOR QUOTATIONS TO FURNISH TWO ELECTRIC HOISTS WITH MAXIMUM SPEED OF 14 FPM (FEET PER MINUTE); A LOW SPEED OF 4.6 FPM; AND A TROLLEY SPEED OF 50 FPM. THE AIR FORCE RECEIVED NINE QUOTATIONS FROM EIGHT FIRMS. THE PROTESTER SUBMITTED TWO OFFERS: ONE FOR AN ELECTRIC WIRE ROPE TYPE HOIST, THE OTHER, WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THE PROTEST, FOR AN ELECTRIC CHAIN ROPE TYPE HOIST. ITS QUOTATION FOR THE LATTER WAS THE LOWEST QUOTATION RECEIVED. HOWEVER, THE AIR FORCE REJECTED IT AFTER A TECHNICAL EVALUATION REVEALED THAT THE HOIST COULD ONLY ATTAIN A MAXIMUM SPEED OF 13 FPM; A LOW SPEED OF 4 FPM; AND A TROLLEY SPEED OF 45 FPM.

VENRAM CONTENDS THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN SPEEDS DID NOT WARRANT THE REJECTION OF ITS PROPOSAL BY THE AIR FORCE. VENRAM ASSERTS THAT IN SPITE OF ITS PRODUCT'S INABILITY TO MEET THE SPECIFIED SPEEDS, THE HOIST IS STILL FUNCTIONAL. VENRAM OFFERS NO FACTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM.

THE PROCURING AGENCY HAS THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING ITS NEEDS AND FOR DRAFTING REQUIREMENTS THAT REFLECT THOSE NEEDS, SINCE IT IS THE AGENCY THAT IS MOST FAMILIAR WITH HOW THE SUPPLIES OR SERVICES HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE USED. EASTERN MARINE, INC., B-213945, MARCH 23, 1984, 84-1 CPD PARA. 343 AT 13. THE AGENCY ALSO IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING AN OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL AND DETERMINING WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED MEETS THE AGENCY'S REQUIREMENTS. PROTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., B-209505, SEPT. 22, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 359. WE THEREFORE WILL NOT DISTURB EITHER AN AGENCY'S DECISION AS TO THE BEST METHOD OF ACCOMMODATING ITS NEEDS, OR THE AGENCY'S TECHNICAL DECISION THAT AN OFFERED ITEM DOES NOT MEET THOSE NEEDS, ABSENT A CLEAR SHOWING BY THE PROTESTER THAT THE DECISION WAS UNREASONABLE. ID.; INTERSTATE COURT REPORTERS, B-208881.2, FEB. 9, 1983, 83-1 CPD PARA. 145.

VENRAM ADMITS THAT THE ELECTRIC CHAIN ROPE TYPE HOIST IT OFFERED DOES NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS AGAINST WHICH QUOTATIONS WERE SOLICITED. IN THIS RESPECT, ANY OBJECTION TO THOSE SPECIFICATIONS AS TOO RESTRICTIVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED, ACCORDING TO OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, BEFORE QUOTATIONS WERE DUE. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(B)(1) (1984). (THERE WERE MORE THAN 5 WEEKS BETWEEN THE CBD ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE DUE DATE.)

THE PROTESTER HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE ITS CASE, ALCHEMY, INC, B-207954, JAN. 10, 1983, 83-1 CPD PARA. 18, AND VENRAM HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT CAST DOUBT ON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE AIR FORCE'S DECISION THAT THE CHAIN ROPE TYPE HOIST IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASONS STATED. THE FACT THAT THE PROTESTER DISAGREES WITH THAT AGENCY'S DECISION DOES NOT IN ITSELF PROVE THE DECISION UNREASONABLE. FIL COIL COMPANY INC., B-213078, FEB. 22, 1984, 84-1 CPD PARA. 219.

THE PROTEST IS DENIED.