BNUMBER:  B-274624
DATE:  December 19, 1996
TITLE:  John Blood

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

Matter of:John Blood

File:     B-274624

Date:December 19, 1996

John Blood for the protester.
Allen W. Smith, Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Although request for quotations issued under simplified acquisition 
procedures did not contain a late quotations provision, agency 
decision to reject protester's late quotation was unobjectionable 
where award at a reasonable price had been made prior to receipt of 
the late quotation.

DECISION

John Blood protests the issuance of a purchase order to Arrowhead 
Starr Company under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 11R2-96-24, 
issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service for the 
thinning of 198 acres in Medicine Bow/Routt National Forest, Yampa 
Ranger District.  The protester contends that the agency improperly 
issued the purchase order prior to receipt of its quote.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ was issued by the Forest Service on August 21, 1996, as a 
small business set-aside under simplified acquisition procedures and 
was sent to 10 companies, including the protester.  The RFQ called for 
quotations to be furnished by the close of business on September 3.  
The contracting officer received two quotes by that time.  On 
September 3, the protester called the agency and told an agency 
purchasing agent that he had mailed a quotation and that he had also 
given an oral price quotation to an employee of the Yampa Ranger 
District.  Later that same day, the contracting officer placed a phone 
call to the protester to obtain a quote, but the phone was not 
answered.  On the morning of September 4, the contracting officer 
still had not received a quote from the protester, and attempted to 
telephone the protester several times, each time receiving no answer.  
He also checked all of the unprocessed mail as well as the facsimile 
machine and found no quotation or correspondence from the protester.  
Lastly, the contracting officer contacted the employee to whom the 
protester allegedly had provided an oral quote and was advised that a 
price quote had not been received from the protester.

On September 4 at 9:00 a.m., after concluding that Arrowhead's price 
was fair and reasonable and within the government's estimate, and 
concerned that the company planned to leave the area that day if it 
did not receive this purchase order, the contracting officer issued a 
purchase order to Arrowhead.  Arrowhead commenced performance at that 
time.  At 2:30 p.m. on September 4, the contracting officer received a 
quotation from the protester that was lower than Arrowhead's, but 
concluded that the late quotation did not warrant disturbing the 
award.  On September 10, the protester was advised that its quotation 
was received after the award decision had been made.  The protester 
filed this protest with our Office on September 12, and the 
contracting officer was notified on September 13.  On September 16, 
the contracting officer contacted the contracting officer's 
representative about the protest and the possible suspension of work 
and was informed that Arrowhead had completed the work.

Simplified acquisition procedures are excepted under the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) from the general 
requirement that agencies obtain full and open competition through the 
use of competitive procedures when conducting procurements.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  
253(g)(4), 427(c) (1994).  These simplified procedures are designed to 
promote efficiency and economy in contracting and to avoid unnecessary 
burdens for agencies and contractors.  In implementing the statutory 
requirement, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires 
contracting officers, when using simplified acquisition procedures, to 
solicit quotations from a reasonable number of qualified sources to 
promote competition to the maximum extent practicable and ensure that 
the purchase is advantageous to the government, based, as appropriate, 
on either price alone or price and other factors.  FAR  sec.  
13.106-2(a)(1) (FAC 90-40); Bosco Contracting, Inc., B-270366, Mar. 4, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  140. 

Under simplified acquisition procedures, agencies generally may seek 
and consider revisions to a quotation any time prior to award.  See 
DataVault Corp., B-248664, Sept. 10, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  166.  Where, as 
here, an RFQ does not contain a late quotations provision--but merely 
requests quotations by a certain date--that date is not considered to 
be a firm closing deadline; consequently, so long as the award process 
has not begun, an agency is not precluded from considering a quotation 
received after that date.  ATF Constr. Co., Inc., B-260829, July 18, 
1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  29.  Here, however, as explained above, the Forest 
Service issued the purchase order to Arrowhead, which then commenced 
performance, prior to the receipt of the protester's quote.  Because a 
purchase order had been issued prior to receipt of the protester's 
quote, the agency's decision not to consider the protester's quote is 
unobjectionable.  Comspace Corp., B-274037, Nov. 14, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  
186.

The protester also contends that preferential treatment was afforded 
Arrowhead because of its participation in the Small Business 
Administration's section 8(a) program.  We will not sustain a protest 
against alleged bias or other wrongdoing by a contracting agency based 
upon speculation only.  Advanced Seal Technology, Inc., B-239191, July 
24, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  73.  The protester has not provided, and the 
record does not otherwise contain, any probative evidence to show bias 
in favor of the awardee.  As noted, the RFQ was sent to 10 contractors 
and two quotes were received.  Arrowhead submitted the lower price, 
which was below the government's estimate and considered reasonable.  
Moreover, the contracting officer made numerous attempts to obtain a 
quote from the protester prior to issuing the purchase order to 
Arrowhead.[1]  There is simply nothing in this record that suggests 
preferential treatment of Arrowhead.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The protester in its comments to the agency report alleges that 
there were several procedural deficiencies during the conduct of this 
procurement.  In support of these allegations, however, the protester 
cites various regulatory provisions which are inapplicable to 
simplified acquisitions.