BNUMBER:  B-280612 
DATE:  October 26, 1998
TITLE: Continental Transport & Moving, Inc., B-280612, October 26,
1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:   Continental Transport & Moving, Inc.

File:        B-280612

Date:        October 26, 1998

Michael Nolan for the protester.
Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency is not required to publicly display notice of procurement 
conducted under simplified acquisition procedures where the proposed 
contract action is not expected to exceed $10,000; in addition, in 
procurement of this size, solicitation of at least three sources 
properly may be considered to promote competition to the maximum 
extent practicable.

DECISION

Continental Transport & Moving, Inc. protests the Department of 
State's failure to solicit an offer from this firm for packing and 
shipping the household and personal effects of an embassy employee in 
Almaty, Kazakstan under purchase order No. S-KZ100-98-M-0390.  
Continental essentially contends that the contracting officer failed 
to provide proper notice of the solicitation and improperly excluded 
Continental from competition.

We deny the protest.

On July 6, 1998, the agency requested "packing-out" estimates from 
three firms, Interdean, Calenberg, and Globalink, for the effects of a 
departing foreign service officer who was being transferred from 
Kazakstan to La Paz, Bolivia.  Although the embassy had previously 
issued similar purchase orders to Continental, it did not request an 
estimate from the protester for this move.  Interdean and Calenberg 
submitted written price estimates, and the contracting officer 
determined that the purchase order should be placed with Calenberg, 
which submitted the low quote.

Continental argues that the embassy was required to maintain a small 
purchases source list and to solicit bids from firms on the list 
"whenever offers are being accepted."  Protest at 1.  The protester 
also contends that the agency was required to post a public notice of 
the solicitation, but failed to do so.

Continental's arguments are without merit.  While the protester argues 
that full and open competition is required, the solicitation was 
subject to the simplified acquisition procedures set forth in Part 13 
of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and therefore required 
only competition to the "maximum extent practicable."  41 U.S.C.A.  sec.  
253(g)(4) (West Supp. 1998); FAR  sec.  13.104 (FAC 97-03, Feb. 9, 1998); 
see Lifeline Ambulance Servs., Inc., B-277415, Sept. 22, 1997, 97-2 
CPD  para.  83 at 2.  FAR  sec.  13.104(b) provides that if a synopsis is not 
required (e.g., the acquisition does not exceed $25,000 or an 
exemption to the synopsis requirement applies) and the Federal 
Acquisition Computer Network is not being used, solicitation of at 
least three sources generally may be considered to promote competition 
to the maximum extent practicable.  Further, this provision allows for 
rotating the opportunity to bid, stating that "[w]henever 
practicable," the contracting officer is to "request quotations or 
offers from two sources not included in the previous solicitation."  
FAR  sec.  13.104(b).  The agency complied with this requirement, selecting 
three firms from its list of six local packing and freight forwarding 
companies, including two sources not included in the previous 
solicitation.  

To determine whether public display and synopsis requirements apply to 
a proposed purchase under simplified procedures, FAR  sec.  13.104(b) 
refers to FAR  sec.   5.101 and 5.202.  Under FAR  sec.  5.101(2), agencies are 
required to publicly display a solicitation where the proposed 
contract action is expected to exceed $10,000 but not expected to 
exceed $25,000.  Here, the agency states that it did not expect this 
procurement to exceed the $10,000 threshold and thus determined that 
the display requirement did not apply.  In fact, the purchase order 
was placed at a price below the $10,000 threshold.  Under the 
circumstances presented here, the agency was not required to post a 
notice of the solicitation, and it satisfied the requirement for 
competition by requesting estimates from three firms.  

In its comments on the agency report, Continental raises a number of 
new objections to the purchase order that was placed with Calenberg, 
challenging such matters as whether the firm has appropriate 
licensing, whether the written estimate was submitted in the proper 
form, whether the estimate was based on an accurate total weight for 
the shipment, and other challenges to the form of each of the 
submitted price quotations.  None of these issues states a valid basis 
for protest, as discussed below. 

As distinguished from the rigid rules applicable to sealed bidding, 
the simplified acquisition procedures allow a more flexible approach, 
suggesting innovative approaches and encouraging agencies to make 
purchases in the simplified manner that is most suitable, efficient, 
and economical based on the circumstances of each acquisition, FAR  sec.  
13.003(h) (FAC 97-03).  We find no support in the FAR for any of 
Continental's challenges to the form in which prices were quoted.  FAR  sec.  
13.106-3(b) provides that documentation for this type of purchase 
should be kept to a minimum; where written solicitations are used, 
written records of solicitations/offers may be limited to notes or 
abstracts to show prices, delivery, references to printed price lists 
used, the supplier or suppliers contacted, and other pertinent data. 

Regarding Continental's allegation that neither Interdean nor 
Calenberg "are properly registered or licensed to conduct business in 
Almaty or Kazakstan," Protest Comments at 3, we assume that 
Continental is questioning the responsibility of these firms, rather 
than alleging a failure to meet any specific requirement since there 
is no solicitation licensing requirement in this case.  However, an 
agency's affirmative determination of a contractor's responsibility 
will not be reviewed by our Office absent a showing of possible bad 
faith on the part of procurement officials, or that definitive 
responsibility criteria in the solicitation may have been misapplied.  
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(c) (1998); King-Fisher Co., B-236687.2, Feb. 12, 1990, 
90-1 CPD  para.  177 at 2.  Where, as here, there is no such showing, we 
have no basis to review the protest.

The protest is denied. 

Comptroller General
of the United States