Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is denied. The protester argued that the specifications for a storage unit sought by the agency were tailored to a particular vendor. GAO, however, found that the agency had performed market research and reasonably concluded that at least three vendors could provide the type of unit it was looking for. The protester also argued that the specification the agency wanted were not necessary to meet its needs. But GAO found that the agency had reasonably determined the specifications it sought would result in ergonomic benefits.
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) issues an RFQ for a vertical module storage system. A vertical lift module consists of a storage column in which items are stored in extractable trays. The RFQ required a system in which three trays were in continuous motion similar to a Ferris wheel. A person getting items from the unit could pick an item off one tray and then pick an item off another tray as it spun around.
A prospective vendor, Kardex Remstar, LLC, filed a protest challenging the terms of the RFQ. Kardex claimed that RFQ’s requirements for a vertical module system with an external tray delivery was tailored to match the product of a single vendor, Modula, Inc. Thus, the RFQ, Kardex maintained, was actually a brand-name procurement for which the agency had not prepared a required justification for other than full and open competition.
Here, GAO noted that the engineer who prepared the statement of work conducted significant market research on vertical storage systems by researching technical journals, attending trade shows and reviewing vendors’ technical information. Based on this research, the engineer concluded that at least three firms, including Modula, were capable of supplying a product with an external delivery system. GAO saw no reason to question this.
Kardex also argued that DLA had failed to establish that the requirement external dual tray requirement was necessary to meet its needs. Kardex claimed that its own product, which had an internal dual tray system, could deliver the same ergonomic and efficiency benefits as the external tray system.
DLA acknowledged that it was possible for an internal system to provide the same efficiencies as the external system, but it did not believe the internal system provided the same ergonomic benefits. DLA maintained that an internal system would require people to bend over more to pick up items.
GAO noted that when a requirement relates to human safety, an agency has the discretion to define solicitation requirements to achieve the highest possible reliability. Thus, GAO declined to question DLA’s conclusions about the ergonomic and health benefits of an external system.
Kardex is represented by Julie M. Nichols and Marissa R. Bagasra of Roeder, Cochran, Phillips, PLLC. The agency is represented by Timothy J. Ryan of the Defense Logistics Agency. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
