TITLE:   Matter of: SMS Systems Maintenance Services, Inc.
BNUMBER: B-284550.2
DATE:  August 4, 2000
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General of the United States

Decision Matter of: SMS Systems Maintenance Services, Inc.

File: B- 284550.2

Date: August 4, 2000 Leonard Walsh for the protester. John J. Pavlick, Jr.,
Esq., and Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti,
for Compaq Computer Corporation, an intervenor. Randy W. Thomas, Esq.,
Department of the Treasury, and Roger D. Waldron, Esq., and Thedlus L.
Thompson, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agencies. Guy R.
Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester's quote of services, some of which were not contained in its
Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, could not be selected for award in
an acquisition conducted under the FSS program, where the total price of the
services not included in its FSS contract, considering both the base and
option periods, exceeded the micro- purchase threshold.

DECISION

SMS Systems Maintenance Services, Inc. protests the award of an order to
Compaq Computer Corporation under its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)
contract, pursuant to a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Office of
Thrift Supervision (OTS), Department of the Treasury, for computer hardware
maintenance and disaster services for a 9- month base period with two 1-
year option periods. SMS complains that OTS improperly failed to select
SMS's lower quote to receive an order.

We deny the protest. OTS requested quotations from SMS and Compaq, the only
two FSS vendors listed on the applicable schedule, for 110 contract line
items, including maintenance of a

Page 2 B- 284550.2 number of VAX computers. 1 Report of OTS, Tab 1, RFQ
(Mar. 29, 2000). Following

the evaluation of the quotes, OTS informed SMS and Compaq that there were a
number of items in the vendors' respective quotes that OTS could not find in
the firms' FSS contracts. Report of OTS, Tab 4, Letter from OTS to Compaq
(Apr. 21, 2000), and Tab 5, Letter from OTS to SMS (Apr. 21, 2000). Both
vendors responded with additional information. On April 27, OTS informed SMS
that the agency still could not find some of the required services in SMS's
FSS contract. Protest, attach. 18, Letter from OTS to SMS (Apr. 27, 2000).
SMS provided further information to OTS. Among other things, SMS admitted
that some line items were not contained within SMS's FSS contract; SMS
stated, however, that these items were of minimal value. Protest, attach.
19, Letter from SMS to OTS (Apr. 27, 2000), at 2.

The contracting officer determined that SMS's quote could not be accepted
because a number of line items in SMS's quote were not in SMS's FSS
contract. Report of OTS, Tab 6, Contracting Officer's Best Value
Determination, at 3. Accordingly, the contracting officer rejected SMS's
quote, notwithstanding its lower price, and selected Compaq's quote for
award of an order. Protest, attach. 20, Letter from OTS to SMS (May 18,
2000). This protest followed.

As a general rule, contracting agencies are required to obtain full and open
competition in the procurement of supplies and services. 41 U. S. C. sect. 253(
a)( 1)( A) (1994); Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 6.101. The FSS
program, directed and managed by the General Services Administration,
provides federal agencies with a simplified process for obtaining commonly
used commercial supplies and services at prices associated with volume
buying. FAR sect. 8.401( a). The procedures established for the FSS program
satisfy the general requirement for full and open competition. 41 U. S. C. sect.
259( b)( 3); FAR sect. 6.102( d)( 3); Sales Resources Consultants, Inc., B-
284943, B- 284943.2, June 9, 2000, 2000 CPD para. ___ at 3.

As both OTS and the General Services Administration (GSA) recognize, non-
FSS products and services may not be purchased using FSS procedures;
instead, their purchase requires compliance with the applicable procurement
laws and regulations, including those requiring the use of competitive
procedures. See Pyxis Corp., B- 282469, B- 282469.2, July 15, 1999, 99- 2
CPD para. 18 at 4; see also ATA Defense Indus., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.
Cl. 489, 503 (1997). Our Office has rejected the notion that items not on a
FSS contract may be purchased under that contract if they were
“incidental” to the services or items being procured under that
contract. 2 Pyxis Corp., supra, at 3- 4.

1 OTS is a mandatory user of the multiple award schedule for these services.
Report of OTS at 1. 2 SMS suggests that its non- FSS services could be
purchased as incidental items

under its FSS contract because these services are not “stand- alone
separate” (continued...)

Page 3 B- 284550.2 Compliance with applicable procurement laws and
regulations does not necessarily

require that a competition be conducted. Of particular relevance here, and
as noted by GSA in its submission to our Office, where the price of the non-
FSS products or services is at or below the $2,500 micro- purchase
threshold, these products or services can be acquired without additional
competition. 3 In this regard, we note that FAR sect. 8.404( b) recognizes
ordering offices' authority to place orders at or below the micro- purchase
threshold with FSS contractors, 4 and that contracting officers have
specific authority to acquire without competition supplies and services at
or below the micro- purchase threshold. See 41 U. S. C. sect. 428( c) (Supp. IV
1998); FAR sect. 13.202( a)( 2); Navistar Marine Instrument Corp., B- 278075,
Dec. 19, 1997, 97- 2 CPD para. 168 at 2.

While admitting that a number of the line items quoted are not in its FSS
contract, SMS contends that, because the total value of these non- FSS
services is approximately $2,300 (i. e., below the micro- purchase
threshold), these non- FSS services can be awarded under its FSS contract.
SMS calculated the value of these non- FSS services by pricing the services
only over the 9- month base period. OTS contends that the value of the non-
FSS services must be calculated over the base and option periods because the
agency anticipates exercising the options, and that in fact the agency
calculated the firms' total price for the services over the base and option
periods in evaluating the vendors' quotes. Supplemental Report of OTS at 3.
GSA agrees that OTS should consider the entire contract term in calculating
the value of the non- FSS services. Supplemental Report of GSA at 3. SMS
concedes that if the non- FSS services are priced over the option periods,
then the price of its non- FSS services exceeds the micro- purchase
threshold. See Protester's Supplemental Comments at 3.

Given OTS's stated intention of exercising the options, we find the agency
reasonably decided to consider the prices for both the base and option
periods for the purpose of determining whether the price for SMS's non- FSS
services would

(... continued) services, but are integral to a larger service that is
within its contract. Protester's Supplemental Comments at 14. SMS is
mistaken as a matter of law. Non- FSS products and services, even if viewed
as incidental or integral to FSS items, may not be purchased using FSS
procedures; instead, in purchasing those items, agencies must follow
applicable procurement laws and regulations, including those requiring the
use of competitive procedures. See Pyxis Corp., supra, at 4; ATA Defense
Indus., Inc., 38 Fed. Cl. at 503. 3 The micro- purchase threshold is defined
to be $2,500. FAR sect. 2.101.

4 This authority is specifically extended to orders under mandatory use
schedules. See FAR sect. 8.404( c).

Page 4 B- 284550.2 exceed the micro- purchase threshold. In this regard, we
note that contracting

officers are prohibited from breaking down its requirements into several
purchases to avoid exceeding the micro- purchase threshold, see FAR sect.
13.003( c), and that options should generally be evaluated when they are
likely to be exercised. See FAR sect. 17.206( a). Given that the total price of
SMS's non- FSS services was reasonably found to exceed the micro- purchase
threshold, SMS's quote could not be selected to receive an order under the
FSS program. 5

The protest is denied. Robert P. Murphy General Counsel

5 Because we find that OTS could not properly award SMS an order under SMS's
FSS contract due to SMS's quote of non- FSS services, we do not address
SMS's other protest contentions.
*** End of document. ***