BNUMBER:  B-281200 
DATE:  December 21, 1998
TITLE: CDS Network Systems, Inc., B-281200, December 21, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:CDS Network Systems, Inc.

File:     B-281200

Date:December 21, 1998

Sally Johnson for the protester.
Robert D. M. Allen, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of this 
decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably eliminated quotation from consideration in a 
procurement conducted using simplified acquisition procedures where 
the solicitation required the submission of documentation describing 
similar contract experience for evaluation of past performance and the 
quotation did not include such documentation; there was no obligation 
for the agency to conduct discussions regarding the failure to provide 
the required documentation.

DECISION

CDS Network Systems, Inc. protests the rejection of its quotation 
under request for quotations (RFQ) No. F44650-99-Q0010, issued by the 
Department of the Air Force for preventive and remedial maintenance 
services for commercial information technology hardware that supports 
the Airborne Warning and Control System at Tinker Air Force Base, 
Oklahoma.

We deny the protest.

The Air Force conducted this procurement pursuant to the simplified 
acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 
13.  Agency Report at 1.  The RFQ, issued on September 10, 1998 as a 
small business set-aside, sought fixed-priced quotes for maintenance 
services on the equipment listed in the solicitation.  The RFQ stated 
the following evaluation plan:

     The Government intends to award a purchase order with the 
     prospective contractor whose quotation conforming to the 
     solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government.  
     Accordingly, the following factors shall be used to evaluate 
     quotations:

        a.  Price
        b.  Past Performance - To enable evaluation of this factor, 
     documentation describing experience in similar efforts for 
     similar equipment to include contract numbers, points of contact, 
     addresses and telephone numbers, accomplished within the past 5 
     years must be included with the quotation.  Quotations submitted 
     without said documentation will not be considered for award.

RFQ at 3-4.

The agency received eight quotes.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 
1.  CDS submitted the lowest-priced quote; however, its quote did not 
include documentation describing its experience accomplished in the 
last 5 years in similar efforts maintaining similar equipment to that 
listed in the RFQ, or identify contract numbers.  Protester's 
Quotation, List of References.  Although its quote did list names, 
addresses and phone numbers for five references, the quote stated that 
these references "are for maintenance/repair work performed by our 
Affiliate company ESSC(Genicom)."  Id.  

The Air Force determined that CDS's quote failed to conform to the RFQ 
in a material manner and eliminated it from consideration.[1]  
Contracting Officer's Statement at 5; Agency Legal Memorandum at 2-3.  
On September 30, the Air Force selected Digital Support Corporation 
for award.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 2.  This protest 
followed.

CDS alleges that the agency should have contacted CDS for the 
additional information before rejecting its quotation.

The purpose of the simplified acquisition procedures at FAR Part 13 is 
to reduce administrative costs, improve opportunities for small, small 
disadvantaged, and women-owned small business concerns to obtain a 
fair proportion of government contracts, promote efficiency and 
economy in contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and 
contractors.  FAR  sec.  13.002 (FAC 97-03).  A contracting officer shall 
promote competition to the maximum extent practicable to obtain 
supplies and services from the source whose quotation is the most 
advantageous to the government, considering relevant factors.  FAR  sec.  
13.104, 13.106-1(a).  The contracting officer shall evaluate 
quotations in an impartial manner on the basis stated in the 
solicitation.  FAR  sec.  13.106-2(a); see Nunez & Assocs., B-258666, Feb. 
10, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  62 at 2.  In doing so, the contracting officer 
has broad discretion in fashioning suitable evaluation procedures for 
quotes received and may, but is not required to, use one or more of 
the evaluation procedures prescribed in FAR Parts 14 and 15.  FAR  sec.  
13.106-2(b)(1).  However, when the evaluation includes factors in 
addition to price, the contracting officer shall ensure that 
quotations can be evaluated in an efficient and minimally burdensome 
fashion; thus, using formal evaluation plans, establishing a 
competitive range, conducting discussions, and scoring quotations are 
not required.  FAR  sec.  13.106-2(b)(2).  In reviewing protests against an 
allegedly improper evaluation under small purchase acquisitions, we 
will examine the record to determine whether the agency met this 
standard and reasonably exercised its discretion.  See Nunez & 
Assocs., supra.

Here, the RFQ stated that quoters would be evaluated on past 
performance, required firms to submit documentation identifying 
similar experience with similar equipment within the last 5 years, and 
stated that quotations which did not submit such documentation would 
not be considered for award.  CDS's quotation did not provide the 
required documentation, but submitted only references for its 
affiliate.  Therefore, the agency exercised reasonable discretion in 
eliminating CDS's quotation from consideration.  See California 
Resources, B-280176, Sept. 8, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  61 at 2, 4 (quote was 
unacceptable for failure to provide required reference information 
establishing similar experience); Nunez & Assocs., supra, at 2-3 
(quote was unacceptable for failure to provide required staff 
information).

CDS nevertheless alleges that it had adequate past performance 
documentation prepared and would have submitted it had the Air Force 
notified CDS of the deficiency in its quotation.  However, the agency 
made award without conducting discussions and, since this acquisition 
was conducted under the simplified acquisition procedures, there was 
no requirement for the Air Force to conduct discussions with CDS or to 
notify it of deficiencies in its quotation. FAR  sec.  13.106-2(b)(2); see 
Sterling Inst., B-223729, Oct. 3, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  390 at 3.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Three quotations, including CDS's, were rejected for lack of the 
required past performance information.  Contracting Officer's 
Statement at 1.