BNUMBER:  B-277833 
DATE:  November 25, 1997
TITLE: Commonwealth Industrial Specialties, Inc., B-277833, November
25, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Commonwealth Industrial Specialties, Inc.

File:     B-277833

Date:November 25, 1997

Richard Snyder for the protester.
Philip F. Eckert, Jr., Esq., and Stephen Stastny, Esq., Defense 
Logistics Agency, for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Requirement that responses to simplified acquisition request for 
quotations be submitted electronically through the agency's electronic 
bulletin board (EBB) is reasonable and consistent with the statutory 
requirement that competition for procurements using simplified 
acquisition procedures be promoted to the maximum extent practicable, 
where the agency reasonably determined that electronic quotations 
would promote efficiency and economy and would not be overly 
burdensome to prospective vendors.

DECISION

Commonwealth Industrial Specialties, Inc. (CIS) protests the terms of 
request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO400-97-T-L228, issued by the 
Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), 
for pressure gages.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ was issued under the agency's automated procurement procedures 
as a simplified acquisition pursuant to the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of 1994, 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(g) (Supp. II 1996), as 
implemented in part 13 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).  
Section 2304(g)(1) provides, in relevant part, as follows: 

     In order to promote efficiency and economy in contracting and to 
     avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors, the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation shall provide for . . . special 
     simplified procedures for purchases of property and services for 
     amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold . . 
     . .

DSCR uses the automated procurement procedures for purchases of 
supplies of up to $25,000, where the acquisitions are not complex or 
urgent; are not for weapons systems, back-ordered, or rebuy items; and 
do not involve government-furnished property.  Under these procedures, 
RFQs are available only through the agency's electronic bulletin board 
(EBB) and quotations can be transmitted only in an electronic format 
using the agency's EBB.  Vendors can access the EBB through the 
vendor's personal computer by dialing a telephone number or logging on 
to the Internet.  First time users must register with the agency 
before proceeding to the EBB menu screens that offer the option to 
download solicitations or submit quotes (or perform such functions as 
reviewing the vendor's Automated Best Value Model past performance 
score).   

CIS argues that the requirement that quotations submitted in response 
to the RFQ be transmitted through the agency's EBB violates the 
requirement under 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(g)(3) (1994) that "[i]n using 
simplified procedures, the head of the agency shall promote 
competition to the maximum extent practicable."  We disagree.

Where requiring electronic submission of quotations in a procurement 
using simplified acquisition procedures would increase efficiency and 
promote competition, without overly burdening prospective vendors, it 
is consistent with the statutory mandate that competition be promoted 
to the maximum extent practicable when simplified acquisition 
procedures are used.  Arcy Mfg. Co., Inc. et al., B-261538 et al., 
Aug. 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  283 at 3-5.  Here, DSCR reports that 
requiring vendors to use its EBB promotes efficiency and economy by 
reducing DSCR's administrative costs and burdens, accelerating the 
procurement cycle, and reducing vendors' overall costs of doing 
business with the government.  Although CIS questions whether DSCR has 
adequately documented the claimed benefits of its EBB, in some 
respects these benefits are self-evident.  Most important, CIS has not 
suggested how or why the agency's conclusions are unreasonable, even 
with respect to eligible vendors such as the protester itself or 
others in the protester's business.  

DSCR's reported experience is consistent with the experience of 
agencies generally, which have found that, with advances in 
information technology, the use of an electronic format can be more 
efficient than the use of a paper format and does not unduly restrict 
competition.  NuWestern USA Contractors, Inc., B-275514, Feb. 27, 
1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  90 (issuance of solicitation only in electronic form 
(CD-ROM) is not unduly restrictive of competition).  Moreover, DSCR's 
approach is consistent with the regulations governing the use of 
simplified acquisition procedures, which provide that "[p]aper 
solicitations for contract actions not expected to exceed $25,000 
should be issued only when obtaining electronic or oral quotations is 
not considered economical or practical."  FAR  sec.  13.106-2(a)(3).  

The agency also maintains that using its EBB generally promotes, 
rather than diminishes, competition relative to a paper format by 
reaching more potential vendors than would otherwise be possible.  In 
this regard, the agency maintains that the statistics on usage of its 
EBB demonstrate that requiring EBB quotations has not diminished 
competition; according to the agency, there was a 27-percent increase 
in the number of participating vendors and a 65-percent increase in 
the number of EBB quotations received between October 1996 and August 
1997.  (The fact that four quotations were submitted in response to 
this RFQ also tends to support the agency's position that the 
requirement to use its EBB has not operated to impose an unreasonable 
burden on vendors.)

As mentioned above, the protester has not identified any basis to 
disagree with the agency's conclusion that any burden on vendors as a 
result of the EBB quotation requirement will be minimal and will not 
negatively affect the level of competition.  Although a vendor seeking 
access to the EBB is required to have access to a personal computer, 
certain telecommunications software, and a modem, these items are 
readily available for purchase in the commercial marketplace, and 
should a vendor not desire to purchase such equipment, access to the 
EBB can be obtained by contacting an electronic data interchange 
provider.  Arcy Mfg. Co., Inc. et al., supra, at 4.  Accordingly, we 
conclude that requiring electronic submission of quotations here does 
not violate any statutory or regulatory provision.[1]

In any case, it does not appear that CIS itself was precluded from 
competing under this solicitation or otherwise suffered competitive 
prejudice as a result of the EBB quotation requirement.  DSCR reports, 
and CIS does not deny, that CIS acknowledged to contracting officials 
that it possesses the equipment necessary to access the EBB, but 
simply wished to retain the option of submitting a quotation by 
facsimile machine.  Where the record demonstrates that an agency's 
actions have not prejudiced a firm protesting to our Office, we will 
not sustain the protest, even if a deficiency in the procurement, such 
as an impropriety in the conduct of discussions, is found.  
McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  54 at 3; see 
Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  
The protest would thus fail for lack of prejudice, even if the 
protester had established improper agency action, which it did not.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. CIS asserts that agencies are only permitted to require electronic 
quotations or offers where they are using the Federal Acquisition 
Computer Network (FACNET), an electronic data interchange system used 
to exchange acquisition information between the government and private 
sector vendors.  There is, however, no current statutory or regulatory 
requirement that agencies use only FACNET when conducting simplified 
acquisitions by means of electronic procedures.  Although the 
regulations governing the use of simplified acquisition procedures 
generally require the use of FACNET "when practicable and 
cost-effective," FAR  sec.  13.103(g), they also clearly contemplate the 
possibility that FACNET may not be available or cost-effective, 
providing in that case that "quotations may be solicited through other 
appropriate means (e.g., orally, or in writing)."  FAR  sec.  
13.106-2(a)(2).  In this regard, DSCR notes that DLA currently is not 
FACNET certified.  While the FAR provision mentions only oral or 
written quotations as alternatives, those means are given only as 
examples ("e.g.") and the provision explicitly permits solicitation 
through "other appropriate means," thus permitting the use of 
electronic means.  There thus is nothing inherently improper in the 
agency's requiring submission of quotations through its EBB.