BNUMBER:  B-272321
DATE:  September 27, 1996
TITLE:  Huntington Valley Industries

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

Matter of:Huntington Valley Industries

File:     B-272321

Date:September 27, 1996

Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., for the protester.
Robert L. Mercadante, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and John Van Schaik, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

In a small purchase acquisition conducted under simplified acquisition 
procedures, the contracting officer properly rejected the protester's 
quotation as technically unacceptable where the quotation lacked the 
most rudimentary technical information required by the request for 
quotations. 

DECISION

Huntington Valley Industries protests that the Defense Industrial 
Supply Center (DISC) improperly rejected the quotation it submitted in 
response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO500-96-T-Y807 for 
close tolerance screws.  

We deny the protest.

The procurement was conducted under simplified acquisition procedures 
authorized by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), 
10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(g) (1994), as implemented in part 13 of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR).  The RFQ was issued by DISC under 
"automated" procedures using the DISC electronic bulletin board to 
solicit and receive quotations.  Firms desiring access to the 
electronic bulletin board to review the RFQs and submit quotations are 
required to enter into small purchase agreements with DISC.  The 
agreements set forth terms, conditions, provisions and clauses which 
are applicable to RFQs and purchase orders issued by DISC for small 
purchases, including those solicited and awarded electronically.[1]  
DISC and Huntington have entered into such an agreement.  

Posted on the DISC electronic bulletin board on April 30, 1996, the 
RFQ stated that the agency required 33 close tolerance screws, that 
the screws were considered a critical item with a short delivery date, 
and requested quotations no later than May 15.  The RFQ described the 
screws as Lockheed part number C9535-6-29 and listed several other 
manufacturing firms (and their respective part numbers) that were 
acceptable.  Huntington's quotation was the second lowest-priced of 
the eight quotations received by DISC.  The three lowest-priced 
quotations, including Huntington's, were all rejected as technically 
unacceptable because they did not contain required information 
concerning the screws that each quoter intended to supply.  The fourth 
lowest-priced quotation, submitted by WESCO Aircraft Hardware 
Corporation, was determined to be technically acceptable and on June 
14 the contracting officer issued a purchase order to WESCO at a total 
price of $2,376.  
Huntington protests that the contracting officer improperly rejected 
its quotation.  The protester states that DISC unfairly required only 
Huntington to submit with its quotation original documentation (i.e., 
no copies) from one of the manufacturers listed in the RFQ as an 
acceptable source showing that the screws to be supplied by Huntington 
would be manufactured by that acceptable source.  The protester 
believes that DISC improperly rejected its quotation solely because it 
did not include original documentation from an acceptable source.

At the outset, we point out that because this purchase did not exceed 
the micro-purchase threshold of $2,500, DISC could have acquired the 
screws without obtaining competitive quotations under FASA,  sec.  4301, 41 
U.S.C.  sec.  428(d), which states: "A purchase not greater than $2,500 may 
be made without obtaining competitive quotations, if the contracting 
officer determines that the price for the purchase is reasonable."  
Moreover, where, as here,  simplified acquisition procedures are used, 
contracting agencies may properly use innovative approaches so as to 
award contracts in the manner that is most suitable, efficient and 
economical in the circumstances of each acquisition.  See FAR  sec.  
13.103 and 13.104; Bosco Contracting, Inc., B-270366, Mar. 4, 1996, 
96-1 CPD  para.  140.  Our Office reviews allegations of improper agency 
actions in conducting simplified acquisitions to ensure that the 
procurements are conducted consistent with the concern for fair and 
equitable competition that is inherent in any federal procurement.  
See General Metals, Inc., 72 Comp. Gen. 54 (1992), 92-2 CPD  para.  319.   

The RFQ and the DISC small purchase agreement specifically required 
quotations to include certain technical information.  The RFQ's 
product item description listed acceptable sources by name and their 
products by part number, and the RFQ stated that source 
inspection/approval would be required of offerors other than 
acceptable sources.  The RFQ also specifically required that 
quotations include the drawing revisions/dates to which the screws 
would be manufactured.  In this connection, the small purchase 
agreement between DISC and participating firms required quotations to 
include the manufacturer's name and part number, the name and location 
of the manufacturing facility, as well as documentation showing that 
the product offered would be supplied by a listed acceptable source.

Huntington's quotation merely included a price and stated the original 
equipment manufacturer's part number (i.e., Lockheed Aeronautical 
Corporation's part) followed by the initials "SPS" (apparently 
referring to SPS Technologies).  The agency reports that SPS 
Technologies has two manufacturing facilities, only one of which was 
listed in the RFQ as an acceptable source.  Huntington's quotation did 
not indicate, as required, which manufacturing facility would supply 
the screws or even identify the screws to be supplied by 
manufacturer's part number.  Thus, it was unclear from Huntington's 
quotation whether Huntington was planning to provide screws made by 
the original equipment manufacturer (Lockheed) or by SPS Technologies.  
Moreover, if Huntington was quoting on screws made by SPS 
Technologies, it was not clear whether the screws would be 
manufactured at the facility that was considered acceptable or at the 
other facility which would require inspection and approval by the 
agency.  Furthermore, Huntington's quotation did not state, as 
required, what drawing revisions would be used in manufacturing the 
screws.  Finally, Huntington's quotation did not include the required 
documention showing that the screws would be supplied by an acceptable 
source.  

Because Huntington's quotation lacked the most rudimentary required 
technical information, DISC could not determine from the quotation 
what screws Huntington intended to supply or whether the screws would 
be manufactured by an acceptable source at an approved facility.  
Thus, the agency reasonably determined the quotation to be technically 
unacceptable based upon the several deficiencies described above.[2]  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. For further discussion of how DISC conducts simplified acquisition 
procedures using its electronic bulletin board, see Arcy Mfg. Co., 
Inc.;  et al., B-261538 et al., Aug. 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  283.

2. In view of our finding that the agency reasonably determined the 
quotation to be technically unacceptable, and because Huntington's 
quotation included no documentation at all regarding the source from 
which it intended to obtain the screws, we need not address 
Huntington's argument that DISC unfairly requires it alone to provide 
original documentation from the manufacturers.