BNUMBER:  B-276820; B-276867 
DATE:  July 28, 1997
TITLE: Michael Ritschard, B-276820; B-276867, July 28, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Michael Ritschard

File:     B-276820; B-276867

Date:July 28, 1997

Michael Ritschard for the protester.
Gilbert H. Chong, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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

Protest that contracting agency improperly refused to solicit a 
potential source for micro-purchases is denied where agency conducted 
the acquisitions at issue in accordance with micro-purchase 
procedures. 

DECISION

Michael Ritschard protests his alleged exclusion as a potential source 
for consideration for purchase orders Nos. N68047-97-M-0275 (0275) and 
N68047-97-M-0304 (0304) issued by the Department of the Navy Regional 
Contracting Center in Singapore for computer services.  

We deny the protests. 

The value of each of the acquisitions at issue was under the 
micro-purchase threshold of $2,500, and both were conducted under 
simplified acquisition procedures for micro-purchases set forth in 
part 13 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.  Purchase order No. 
0275 was for debugging Windows 95 and system configuration on five 
computers;  purchase order No. 0304 was for furnishing a new computer 
casing and installing government furnished parts into the casing.  In 
each instance, the contracting officer contacted two firms and both 
firms submitted quotes.  On April 11, purchase order No. 0275 was 
issued to ADA Systems House for $600, and on April 25, purchase order 
No. 0304 was issued to BusinessIt Pte. Ltd. for $309.  On April 22 and 
April 28, these protests were filed with our Office.  The protester 
contends that he was not permitted to submit a quotation for either 
acquisition and is being wrongfully excluded from competing for 
micro-purchases of computer services by the contracting activity.  

Because the value of these purchases did not exceed the micro-purchase 
threshold of $2,500, the agency properly was entitled to acquire the 
services without obtaining competitive quotations by section 4301 of 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, 41 U.S.C.  sec.  428(d) 
(1994), 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."  

The contracting officer states that he first became aware of the 
protester's interest as a potential source for the computer services 
upon receipt of the protester's April 3 request to be placed on a 
source list.  The contracting officer further states that he was aware 
of at least five sources for the small computer debugging and repair 
work and, in accordance with the regulations concerning 
micro-purchases, in each instance he sought quotes from only two 
sources and issued a purchase order to the low quoter after having 
determined that the price was reasonable.  In addition, the 
contracting officer notes that he will consider the protester as a 
possible source for future such micro-purchases, pointing out that, 
because of the number of available sources, the protester will not 
always be solicited.[1]  Under the circumstances, rather than 
reflecting that the agency improperly excluded the protester from 
competing, the record establishes that the agency complied with 
applicable micro-purchases regulations and that the protester will be 
given appropriate consideration for future micro-purchases.    

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States          

1. The agency points out that the protester may be determined 
ineligible to compete because of a possible conflict of interest.  The 
protester's spouse is the agency's financial manager and through her 
responsibility for certifying the availability of funds has knowledge 
of procurement sensitive information.  While the question of whether 
the agency could properly eliminate the protester from consideration 
because of the appearance of a conflict of interest is not before us, 
we note, as a general matter, that the responsibility for determining 
whether a firm should be excluded from competition in order to avoid 
actual or apparent favoritism or preferential treatment rests 
primarily with the contracting agency.  Revet Env't & Analytical Lab., 
Inc., B-221002.2, B-221003.2, July 24, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  102 at 3.