BNUMBER:  B-270124
DATE:  February 12, 1996
TITLE:  Imaging Technology Corporation

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

Matter of:Imaging Technology Corporation

File:     B-270124

Date:     February 12, 1996

Larry Loughrey and Robert F. Rayle for the protester.
Susan Bernstein, Esq., Federal Emergency Management Agency, for the 
agency.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., 
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of 
the decision.

DIGEST

Under request for quotations (RFQ), which sought prices for items 
listed on Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) and did not request 
submission with quotations of information demonstrating compliance 
with the technical requirements set out in the RFQ, rejection of 
lowest-priced quotation from FSS contractor without consideration of 
its technical acceptability was improper.

DECISION

Imaging Technology Corporation (ITC) protests the award of a purchase 
order for computerized badging systems to Network Engineering Inc. 
(NEI) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. EMQ-5-4442/R, issued by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  The protester 
contends that the order should have been placed with it since its 
quotation was lower in price than NEI's.

We sustain the protest.

The RFQ, which was issued on September 14, 1995, sought quotations for 
15 computerized photographic identification card systems.  The 
solicitation defined 32 features and capabilities required of the 
systems.  The RFQ advised that all items were to be "quoted off a 
current GSA schedule" (although non-schedule items were permitted if 
they could be ordered together with the scheduled buy or totaled less 
than $25,000), with award to be made to the lowest-priced schedule 
vendor, including the value of non-schedule items.  Vendors were 
instructed to furnish the number of the schedule from which, and to 
designate the items on which, they were quoting, and to provide price 
information.  The RFQ did not require the submission of descriptive 
literature or a narrative describing how a vendor's proposed system 
would meet the RFQ's requirements.

Four quotations were received by the September 20 closing date.  ITC's 
quotation contained only the information specifically requested by the 
RFQ, i.e., unit and total prices for 15 badging systems and 4 years 
maintenance and warranty; the number of the Federal Supply Schedule 
(FSS) contract from which it was quoting; and an item-by-item 
designation of the components (e.g., computer, software, printer, 
monitor, etc.) comprising its system and their prices.  NEI, on the 
other hand, responded to the RFQ with a proposal which contained an 
individual statement of compliance with each of the specifications 
(with arguably one exception)[1] and descriptive literature 
establishing compliance with some of the requirements.  NEI's response 
also designated the number of the FSS contract and the items on which 
it was quoting, and furnished itemized price information; it did not 
provide overall unit and extended prices for the badging systems and 
maintenance/warranty, as requested, however.

The contracting officer evaluated the vendors' offered prices and 
determined that NEI's overall price for the basic systems requested 
was $285,618.75,[2] which was low; ITC's quotation, with an overall 
price of $295,192.00, was second low.  The contracting officer then 
referred the quotations for technical evaluation.  The technical 
evaluator concluded that it was impossible to evaluate the 
acceptability of ITC's quotation since it contained no discussion of 
the system's capabilities.  Since NEI's price was lowest and its 
quotation had been determined to be technically acceptable, the 
contracting officer issued a purchase order for the badging systems  
to NEI on September 27.

ITC argues that the contracting officer miscalculated NEI's price and 
that it was not in fact low.[3]  We have reviewed NEI's figures and 
the agency's calculations, and we agree.  It is apparent that in 
arriving at the figure $285,618.75, the contracting officer failed to 
include two items of cost identified by NEI on its itemized pricing 
sheet (and included in the purchase order issued):  $9,800 for 
database development, installation, and maintenance; and $8,925 for 
training.  The RFQ required that vendors provide at least three 
training sessions for each system purchased, and the cost of this 
training was included in calculating the other vendors' total prices.  
NEI's total price, properly calculated including these items, is 
$304,343.75, approximately $9,000 higher than ITC's price.

FEMA disputes this figure, arguing that although the contracting 
officer erred in her computations, the correct total price for NEI's 
systems is $288,068.75, not $304,343.75.  The agency contends that 
although the contracting officer incorrectly omitted $9,800 for 
database development from her calculations, she wrongly included 
$7,350 in the evaluated price for 15 (i.e., one per badging system) 
"Quikworks Signature Capture Option kits" at a price of $490 per kit.  
According to the agency, the kits were offered by NEI as an option, 
not in response to an RFP requirement, and their cost therefore should 
not have been included in calculating the price of NEI's basic system.

Based on our review of the RFQ, NEI's quotation, and the purchase 
order issued, we see no basis to conclude that NEI offered the kits as 
an option not to be considered in calculating NEI's basic price.  NEI 
listed 15 Quikworks Signature Capture Option Kits (with an extended 
price of $7,350) in its basic quotation, presumably in response to a 
solicitation requirement that the badging system offered have the 
capability to capture the signatures of the Director of Security and 
the badge applicant.  In addition, the price breakdown attached to the 
purchase order included the cost of the 15 Signature Capture Option 
kits in the price of the base systems.

Furthermore, even if FEMA were correct regarding the $7,350 for the 
kits, NEI's price would still be higher than ITC's.  The sum of 
$288,068.75--NEI's price as calculated by FEMA--does not include any 
training costs, which in NEI's case totaled $8,925 for the 15 systems; 
when that amount is added, NEI's price is $296,993.75, which exceeds 
ITC's total of $295,192.  If it is the agency's position that training 
costs should not have been included in calculating the costs of the 
badging systems offered, then the costs of training should have been 
subtracted from the other vendors' price totals as well, so as to 
place them on comparable footing with NEI.  In ITC's case, this would 
have meant a reduction of $30,000 in its overall evaluated price--to 
$265,192, which is considerably lower than NEI's evaluated price.

When ordering from the FSS, a procuring agency is required to order 
from the schedule contractor offering the lowest overall price for 
products meeting its needs.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
8.404(b)(2), (c)(1); The Mart Corp.,
B-254967.3, Mar. 28, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  215; Garrett-Callahan Co., 
B-246895, Apr. 8, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  352.  Here, as discussed above, 
ITC's price was lowest, yet FEMA never performed a technical 
evaluation to determine whether the equipment that it offered would 
meet the agency's needs.  The agency justifies its rejection of ITC's 
quotation as technically unacceptable on the ground that it included 
no information demonstrating that the system offered met the technical 
requirements in the RFQ.  This argument ignores the fact that the RFQ 
did not call for submission of any such information; it asked vendors 
only to identify the items they were offering and the applicable FSS 
schedule, and provide prices.  Where, as here, a schedule contractor's 
price is low, and there is no requirement in the RFQ for the 
submission of information demonstrating compliance with the 
solicitation's requirements, we think that the agency has a duty to 
seek out the information that it requires to evaluate technical 
acceptability--by contacting the General Services Administration, 
which manages the FSS program, or by requesting additional information 
from the vendor itself--prior to selecting a vendor.  See 
Garrett-Callahan Co., supra.  In this regard, we note that an RFQ is a 
negotiated procurement and agencies are not barred from holding 
discussions with, and seeking additional information from, vendors 
after the submission of quotations.  See CEFCO Enters., Inc., 
B-227490,
July 2, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  10.  By not doing so here, the agency failed 
reasonably to ensure that its selection was to a vendor that met the 
agency's needs at the lowest overall cost, as required by FAR  sec.  8.404.  
See Garrett-Callahan Co., supra.

Since the agency rejected ITC's quotation, which was low, without 
determining whether the equipment that it offered would meet the 
agency's needs, we sustain the protest.  We recommend that FEMA take 
steps to obtain additional information concerning the badging systems 
that ITC offered to ascertain whether or not the systems meet the 
specifications set forth in the RFQ.  If, after considering that 
information, the agency determines that ITC's system will meet its 
needs, we recommend that it cancel the purchase order awarded to NEI 
and issue a purchase order under ITC's FSS contract.[4]  We also 
recommend that the agency pay the protester the costs of filing and 
pursuing its protest.  See Bid Protest Regulations, section 
21.8(d)(1), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,743 (Aug. 10, 1995) (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d)(1)).  In accordance with section 
21.8(f)(1) of the Bid Protest Regulations, ITC's certified claim for 
such costs, detailing the time expended and the costs incurred, must 
be submitted directly to the agency within 90 days after receipt of 
this decision.

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In response to the requirement that the system "be capable of 
volume throughput (minimum 1 card every 65 seconds)," NEI stated that 
its system's "volume throughput and actual print time will not exceed 
105 seconds (based on card design)."

2. Although the contracting officer does not explain how she arrived 
at this figure, we assume that she multiplied NEI's unit price of 
$15,232 per badging system by 15 (since 15 systems were to be 
ordered), which yields a subtotal of $228,480, and then added $57,138 
($3,809.25 per badging system for 4 years maintenance and warranty x 
15 systems).

3. The protester also alleged in its initial protest that the agency 
had improperly waived the requirement for a throughput speed of 65 
seconds or less for NEI, which allowed that company to offer a less 
expensive printer than the one offered by ITC.  In view of our 
conclusion that the agency miscalculated NEI's price and that it was 
in fact higher than ITC's, we need not address this argument.

4. The agency has advised us that it accepted delivery of one badging 
system from NEI prior to the filing of ITC's protest; our 
recommendation thus applies to the remaining systems only.