BNUMBER:  B-262223.2
DATE:  February 9, 1996
TITLE:  Cutter Lumber Products

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Cutter Lumber Products

File:     B-262223.2

Date:     February 9, 1996

Tony Palma for the protester.
E. L. Timmins for Precision Wood Products, Inc., an interested party.
Benjamin G. Perkins, Esq., and Stephen Stastny, Esq., Defense 
Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's inadvertent failure to solicit incumbent contractor does not 
warrant sustaining incumbent's subsequent protest where agency 
otherwise obtained full and open competition.

DECISION

Cutter Lumber Products protests the award of a contract to Precision 
Wood Products, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
SPO440-95-R-0655, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to 
supply wooden pallets to nine DLA destinations located in the states 
of California, Utah, Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and 
Pennsylvania.  Cutter contends that DLA's failure to provide it with a 
copy of the solicitation improperly denied it the opportunity to 
compete for the Tracy, California pallet requirement, one of nine 
contract line item numbers (CLIN) set forth in the RFP.[1]

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside on January 17, 
1995, and was distributed to 62 prospective small business 
contractors.  Although Cutter was the incumbent for providing the 
required pallets to the Tracy, California destination site--CLIN 0005 
of the RFP--the contract specialist who prepared the solicitation 
distribution list admits that because of administrative error, he 
failed to provide Cutter with a copy of the follow-on procurement.

Cutter's incumbent contract for the Tracy, California site was 
scheduled to expire on September 23, 1995.  On August 16, the record 
shows that Cutter telephoned the DLA contracting office and asked when 
the follow-on pallet requirement for the Tracy, California site would 
be solicited.  The contract specialist advised Cutter that she was 
unaware of the status for the follow-on procurement, and that the 
cognizant contract specialist who supervised this requirement was on 
vacation.  On August 21, Cutter contacted the designated contract 
specialist and learned for the first time that a follow-on contract 
for the Tracy, California pallet requirement already had been 
solicited, and a contract awarded on June 28, 1995.  That same day, 
Cutter filed an agency-level protest challenging DLA's failure to 
provide it with the follow-on RFP, which was denied; on September 22, 
Cutter filed this protest.

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 requires contracting 
agencies to obtain full and open competition, and this is accomplished 
only where (1) all qualified vendors are allowed and encouraged to 
submit offers on federal procurements; and (2) a sufficient number of 
offers is received to ensure that the government's requirements are 
filled at the lowest possible cost.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(a)(1)(A) (1994); 
41 U.S.C.  sec.  403(6) (1994); H.R. Rep. No. 1157, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. 17 
(1984).  We have concluded, therefore, that failure to solicit a 
successfully-performing incumbent, with the result that an identified 
responsible source is prevented from competing where there is only a 
minimal level of competition, results in a failure to obtain full and 
open competition.  Professional Ambulance, Inc., B-248474, Sept. 1, 
1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  145.  Support for our view is found in the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which provides that solicitation mailing 
lists are to be maintained by contracting activities, that lists are 
to include those considered capable of filling agency requirements, 
and that solicitations normally are to be sent to those on the lists.  
FAR  sec.  14.203-1, 14.205-1, and 15.403.  The FAR also provides that 
where--as here--agencies rotate names on an excessively lengthy 
mailing list, the agency should continue to include the "previously 
successful bidder."  FAR  sec.  14.205-4(b).  

In this case, by affidavit, the cognizant contract specialist states 
that he inadvertently overlooked Cutter's cage code classification, 
which would have alerted him to the protester's incumbent status and 
eligibility to compete for the successor requirement.  DLA contends 
that the contract specialist's dissemination error does not warrant 
sustaining Cutter's protest since despite the agency's failure to 
solicit the incumbent, full and open competition was obtained.  The 
agency argues that, because 12 offers for CLIN 0005 were received--and 
the agency could determine that award was made at a reasonable 
price--the failure to solicit Cutter does not warrant sustaining its 
protest.

The number of competitors is often the key consideration in 
determining whether absence of the incumbent resulted in a failure to 
obtain full and open competition.  For example, in Kimber Guard & 
Patrol, Inc., B-248920, Oct. 1, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  220, we sustained the 
protest because the agency had received such a minimal level of 
competition--only one proposal--that the exclusion of the 
incumbent--whose price is generally a reliable and effective benchmark 
against which to judge the current reasonable market price--prevented 
the agency from concluding that reasonable prices had been received.  
See also Professional Ambulance, Inc., supra (protest sustained where 
three proposals were received); Transwestern Helicopters, Inc., 
B-235187, July 28, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  95 (protest denied where 25 
proposals were received).  However, the fact that numerous proposals 
are received does not automatically guarantee that an agency has 
obtained a reasonable market price, see Qualimetrics, Inc., B-262057, 
Nov. 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  228 (fact that numerous proposals were 
received did not remedy incumbent's absence as a benchmark in the 
competition since no other offeror proposed to supply the identical 
equipment which incumbent manufactured and solicitation was for 
multiple award Federal Supply Schedule contract).  In this case, the 
record persuades us that the 12 offers received for CLIN 0005 provided 
a reasonable basis for the agency's conclusion that full and open 
competition, and a reasonable market price for the required pallets, 
was obtained, despite the incumbent's absence from the competition.

The record shows that the 12 offers received were all for the 
identical item. Among the 12 prices, there is a logical dividing line 
between the 3 lowest prices and the remaining 9; specifically, the 
second and third lowest prices--which are only 50 cents apart--are 22 
percent lower than the fourth lowest price.  The record also shows 
that the awardee's price is 13 percent lower than the next offeror's 
price; in fact, the majority of the 12 proposed prices are at least 48 
percent higher than that of the awardee.  Additionally, the record 
shows that the current awardee's price is 2 percent lower than the 
incumbent's prior award price; in this regard, our review of the 
contract pricing history for this item indicates that although the 
incumbent submitted the lowest price in the prior competition, when 
compared to other contracts awarded by DLA for this identical item, 
the incumbent's prior award price was one of the higher prices paid by 
DLA.

Given that 12 offers were received, and the current awardee's price is 
lower than the other competitors' prices, as well as the incumbent's 
prior contract price for the identical item, we see no basis to 
conclude that the exclusion of the incumbent from the competition 
prevented the agency from obtaining reasonable prices.  Under these 
circumstances, DLA's inadvertent failure to solicit the protester did 
not prevent the agency from satisfying the statutory goal of full and 
open competition.  Consequently, we do not think it appropriate to 
disturb the procurement process by recommending that the requirement 
be resolicited. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
f:\projects\pl\222301d2.wp5

1. The RFP contemplated multiple awards, and further provided that 
each CLIN would be awarded to the lowest-priced, technically 
acceptable offer.