BNUMBER:  B-276885 
DATE:  July 29, 1997
TITLE: Federal Computer International Corporation, B-276885, July
29, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Federal Computer International Corporation

File:     B-276885

Date:July 29, 1997

Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., for the protester.
Michael Briskin, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Amy C. Lohr, Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office 
of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Where solicitation contained general statement regarding price 
evaluation, but was silent as to the actual calculation method which 
would be utilized to evaluate prices, protest that agency performed an 
improper evaluation is denied where:  (1) the basis for the evaluation 
challenge--the protester's interpretation of an ambiguous 
solicitation--was apparent from the solicitation but not challenged 
prior to the solicitation's closing time; and (2) except for mere 
disagreement, the protester has not shown--and the record does not 
suggest--that the agency's price evaluation was unreasonable.

DECISION

Federal Computer International Corporation (FCIC) protests the 
selection of Technical Specialties, Inc. (TSI) under request for 
quotations (RFQ) No. SP4700-97-Q-0001, issued by the Defense Logistics 
Agency (DLA) for computer maintenance at various DLA sites in the 
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  FCIC contends that the agency 
failed to adhere to the RFQ's pricing evaluation criteria, and that 
under a proper evaluation, FCIC should have been selected because it 
submitted the lowest quote.

We deny the protest.

This requirement was initially issued on December 31, 1996, as a 
request for proposals; on January 23, 1997, DLA converted the 
solicitation to a small purchase RFQ, in accordance with Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Part 13.  As amended, the RFQ contemplated the 
award of a fixed-price, time-and-materials contract for a performance 
period not to exceed either a maximum funding ceiling of $50,000 or 1 
year, whichever occurred earlier.  The RFQ stated that award would be 
made to the firm submitting the technically acceptable quotation 
offering the best value to the government, based on a "comparative 
assessment" of past performance and price, which were ranked as equal 
factors.

Firms responding to the RFQ were required to complete and submit a 
past performance questionnaire (indicating three recent contract 
references for similar work) and the solicitation's "pricing table," 
which required separate unit prices for the following five items:  (1) 
"labor rate per hour"; (2) "minimum per call charge (if any)"; (3) 
"travel costs (if any)"; (4) "material handling charge (if any)"; and 
(5) "other costs (if any)."  The RFQ stated that "[a]ll [prices] 
indicated on the Pricing Table will be evaluated and compared among 
offerors."  The RFQ also included a prohibition which precluded 
quoters from submitting a "minimum per call charge" that was higher 
than the quoted "labor rate per hour."

By the March 18 closing date, 12 quotations were received; after 
evaluating each firm's past performance, DLA performed the following 
price evaluation.  First, the agency multiplied each quoter's "minimum 
per call charge" by the RFQ's corresponding estimate (240 calls).  
Next, DLA multiplied each quoter's "labor rate per hour" by the RFQ's 
corresponding labor hour estimate (323 hours).  DLA then selected the 
higher of these two prices, and added this figure to the sum of each 
quoter's remaining three pricing schedule items to determine each 
quoter's overall price.  Eight quoters, including TSI and FCIC, 
received past performance ratings of "outstanding"; of these eight, 
TSI's price was lowest and FCIC's was second lowest.  On April 21, DLA 
selected TSI as offering the best value to the government.

FCIC contends that DLA performed an improper pricing evaluation.  FCIC 
argues that the RFQ's statement that "[a]ll prices included on the 
Pricing Table will be evaluated" required the agency to include both 
the "minimum per call charge" and the "labor rate per hour" in its 
overall pricing calculation.  Since DLA's pricing evaluation was 
performed by eliminating either the "minimum per call charge" or the 
"labor rate per hour"--whichever was lower-- from the total 
calculation of each quoter's evaluated price, FCIC argues that the 
agency failed to evaluate "[a]ll prices indicated on the Pricing 
Table" as required by the RFQ's pricing evaluation criterion.

FCIC's protest derives from an ambiguity apparent on the face of the 
RFQ; that is, while the RFQ states that all prices "will be evaluated 
and compared among offerors," it is silent as to the actual method to 
be used to calculate the evaluated price total.  In this regard, the 
evidence in the record shows that FCIC was aware that the RFQ did not 
clearly state how prices would be evaluated.  According to 
contemporaneous notes taken by the contract specialist, a 
representative of FCIC telephoned the contract specialist on January 
28 to ask how the "minimum per call charge" would be evaluated.  The 
notes show that the contract specialist initially replied that the 
agency would perform the "minimum per call charge" calculation and the 
"labor rate per hour" calculation and then take the higher figure; 
however, the contract specialist contacted the FCIC representative 
later that day, told him not to rely on the explanation given earlier, 
and advised him to submit his question by facsimile to the contracting 
officer.  FCIC disputes that the agency gave its representative any 
indication that the "minimum per call charge" would be evaluated in 
the manner that the agency selected, but does not otherwise dispute 
the agency's statement of facts regarding the telephone conversation.  

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a solicitation defect apparent on 
the face of the solicitation must be protested prior to the time set 
for receipt of initial proposals or quotations, when it is most 
practicable to take effective action against such defects.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(1) (1997); Cleveland Telecommunications Corp., B-247964.3, 
July 23, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  47 at 3.  Furthermore, an offeror who 
chooses to compete under a patently ambiguous solicitation does so at 
its own peril, and cannot later complain when the agency proceeds in a 
way inconsistent with one of the possible interpretations.  
CardioMetrix, B-274585, Nov. 18, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  190 at 3; Watchdog 
Inc., B-258671, Feb. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  69 at 5.  In this case, 
despite FCIC's awareness of the ambiguity in the RFQ regarding price 
evaluation, it waited until after award to raise its challenge.  
Accordingly, FCIC's protest is untimely.  Watchdog Inc., supra.

In the absence of a timely challenge to the RFQ, there is no basis to 
object to the evaluation method the agency used unless it is 
unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFQ.  See Fort Wainwright Devs., 
Inc. et al., 65 Comp. Gen. 572, 583 (1986), 86-1 CPD  para.  459 at 14, 
recon. denied, B-221374.9, Aug. 11, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  172 at 6 (where 
solicitation mandated the use of "Economic Indicators" in the required 
cost evaluation, but did not specify the inflation rate that it would 
use for evaluation purposes, the agency was free to use any reasonable 
economic index in its evaluation).  The test here is thus whether the 
evaluation method was reasonable and consistent with the general 
statement in the RFQ that all prices would be evaluated.  As the 
record shows, the agency in fact reviewed and considered--and thus 
evaluated--all prices.  Contrary to the protester's argument, nothing 
in the RFQ or common usage requires concluding that the RFQ's 
statement that all prices would be "evaluated" meant that they would 
be added together, which would assume the agency was paying both the 
minimum per-call charge and the hourly rate on every service call.  
The agency then concluded that the higher of its two 
calculations--minimum per charge call or labor hour rate--should be 
used for evaluation purposes as the most reliable indicator of the 
likely cost to the government.  FCIC does not argue that this method 
produced an unreliable measure of each offeror's likely charge to the 
government, and on its face the agency's decision was a reasonable 
one.  Under these circumstances, we see no basis to object to the 
agency's evaluation.[1]  Id.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In its report on the protest, the agency recognizes a potential 
flaw in its evaluation method--it failed to take into account that, 
for short service calls, a pricing arrangement with a relatively high 
hourly rate but no minimum charge per call could cost the government 
less than one which, while including a lower hourly rate, also 
included a minimum charge per call.  Extrapolating from actual work 
orders issued under the prior contract, the agency calculated the 
effect of this possibility on FCIC's and TSI's prices and concluded 
that FCIC's price remained higher.  Given that FCIC and TSI had equal 
past performance ratings, the award to TSI would clearly not be 
affected.  FCIC did not respond to the agency's position in this 
regard.