TITLE:  Multi-Spec Products Corporation, B-287135, March 30, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287135
DATE:  March 30, 2001
**********************************************************************
Multi-Spec Products Corporation, B-287135, March 30, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Multi-Spec Products Corporation

File: B-287135

Date: March 30, 2001

Carolyn Stine for the protester.

Lynne E. Georges, Esq., and Michael Trovarelli, Esq., Defense Logistics
Agency,
for the agency.

Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly considered as acceptable a quotation stating a delivery
period longer than identified in the request for quotations (RFQ) conducted
under simplified acquisition procedures, and reasonably evaluated delivery,
where the RFQ permitted firms to quote delivery periods longer than that
requested, and stated that delivery would be an evaluation factor.

DECISION

Multi-Spec Products Corporation protests an award of a purchase order to
Julian A. McDermott Corporation (JAMC) under request for quotations (RFQ)
No. SPO560-01-Q-6250, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense
Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), Pennsylvania, for electric lanterns.

We deny the protest.

The agency issued the RFQ on January 10, 2001 as a small business set-aside
under the streamlined acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) Part 13. Agency Report at 2. The contemplated purchase
price fell below the simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000. See FAR
sect. 2.101.

The first page of the RFQ was Standard Form (SF) 18 (Rev. 6-95). Block 6 of
SF 18, which was completed by the agency, stated, "Deliver within 40 days
[after date of

order (ADO)]." Block 11 provided items for the quoter to complete, including
the following:

d. If delivery period shown in Block 6 is unacceptable, provide best
possible delivery: ___________.

The general instructions of the RFQ stated the following:

NOTICE: Best Value Buying: DSCP purchases at or below the [simplified
acquisition threshold] are subject to Best Value Buying techniques. This
includes, but is not limited to, . . . the Delivery Evaluation Factor
Program and Contracting Officers' individual determinations based on a
comparative assessment of pertinent circumstances, including . . . delivery
. . . .

RFQ at 5.

The agency received four quotations. Agency Report at 3. Multi-Spec's
quotation was the only one offering a delivery period of 40 days; the other
quotes offered longer delivery periods. JAMC's quotation had the longest
delivery period of 150 days. JAMC's price of $51,067.50 was lowest, followed
by Multi-Spec's price of $59,400. The delivery evaluation provided for
dollar values to be added to each quoter's price for each day it promises
delivery beyond the requested 40-day delivery period. Once this adjustment
was made, JAMC's evaluated price was $55,392.92, which was still the lowest
evaluated price. Since Multi-Spec quoted the requested delivery of 40 days,
Multi-Spec's evaluated price was the same as its quoted price, which
remained the next lowest. The contracting officer selected JAMC's quotation
for award. Agency Report at 3-4. This protest followed.

Multi-Spec alleges that JAMC's quotation is unacceptable because its quoted
delivery period exceeds the required delivery period stated in the RFQ. The
protester alternatively alleges that the agency improperly included delivery
as an evaluation factor contrary to the terms of the applicable simplified
purchase agreement (SPA) previously issued by the agency, and that the
evaluation of delivery beyond the 40-day period stated in the RFQ without
proper notice in the RFQ created an unequal competition. Multi-Spec states
that, had it known that the agency would consider delivery period beyond the
40 days stated in the RFQ, Muti-Spec could and would have quoted a price
lower than JAMC's.

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) requires simplified
procedures for small purchases of property and services in order to promote
efficiency and economy in contracting, and to avoid unnecessary burdens for
agencies and contractors. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(g)(1) (Supp. IV 1998); FAR
sect. 13.002. Consistent with this requirement, purchases for an amount not
greater than the simplified acquisition threshold are expressly exempted
from the requirement that solicitations include a statement of all
significant evaluation factors and subfactors that the agency reasonably
expects to consider. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2305(a)(2)(A). Nevertheless, all
procurements, including those to which this exemption applies, must be
conducted consistent with the concern for a fair and equitable competition
that is inherent in any procurement. General Metals, Inc., B-249259 et al.,
Nov. 3, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 319 at 4. In this regard, an agency must evaluate
quotations on the basis set forth in the RFQ. Id.

Here, the RFQ stated the agency's desire for delivery "within 40 days."
However, since the RFQ also expressly permitted firms to propose a different
delivery period if they considered the 40-day period unacceptable, the
stated request for delivery "within 40 days" cannot be construed as a
mandatory requirement. The protester's contention to the contrary, that
JAMC's quotation must be rejected as unacceptable for stating a delivery
period in excess of 40 days, is inconsistent with the express terms of the
RFQ. See Overstreet Elec. Co., Inc., B-283830, B-283830.2, Dec. 30, 1999,
2000 CPD para. 8 at 8 (solicitation must be read as a whole and in a manner that
gives effect to all of its provisions).

The RFQ also expressly stated that delivery would be an evaluation factor.
Thus, consistent with the concern for a fair and equitable competition, the
agency was required by the terms of the solicitation to evaluate delivery.
General Metals, Inc., supra, at 4-5. While the protester argues that a more
specific statement was required in order to alert firms that delivery would
be evaluated, particularly in light of the exemption from the CICA
requirement to identify evaluation factors and subfactors applicable here,
we cannot conclude that DSCP was required to state in the RFQ any given
level of detail concerning the evaluation factors identified in this RFQ.
Id. The only requirement is that the agency conduct the evaluation
reasonably and consistent with the terms that are stated in the RFQ. Id.
Here, the agency evaluated delivery by increasing the evaluated price of a
quotation for each day the quoted delivery period exceeded the requested
40-day period. The evaluation of delivery thus treated shorter delivery
periods as better. This is a reasonable evaluation of delivery, consistent
with the notice in the RFQ stating that delivery would be evaluated. [1] Id.

As noted, Multi-Spec alleges that the terms of a SPA applicable to DSCP
procurements of this type misled the protester. [2] Specifically, the SPA
stated the following:

when delivery will be an evaluation factor for award of the Purchase Order,
one or both of the following statements will be included in the RFQ:

  A. Delivery will be an evaluation factor in award. Earlier delivery is
     desired and will be given preference.
  B.
  C. Price and delivery will be considered as award factors. Preference may
     be given for earlier delivery.

Agency Report, Tab 3, SPA, at 21. The protester contends that, since neither
of these statements appeared in the RFQ, Multi-Spec reasonably concluded
that the RFQ did not provide for evaluation of delivery and presumed that
delivery periods longer than the period stated in the RFQ would not be
accepted by the agency.

We do not think that the protester's conclusion is reasonable. Even
assuming, arguendo, that the SPA requires such a verbatim incorporation of
one or more of these statements as a prerequisite for evaluating delivery,
the clear statement in the RFQ that delivery would be evaluated cannot be
ignored. At best, the protester reasonably could have concluded that the RFQ
contained an obvious defect or ambiguity, which it could have raised as a
basis for protest prior to the closing date for submission of quotations. 4
C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2000). The protester did not do this. Given that the
RFQ stated that delivery would be evaluated, the agency was required to
evaluate delivery.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. We have previously noted that, although not required, it may be desirable
for the DLA to state in the RFQ a more detailed description of the delivery
evaluation factor and its relative importance. General Metals, Inc., supra,
at 4-5. We think the benefit to the government of providing more detail in
an RFQ about the relative importance of early delivery is evident from the
present record. The agency's apparent motivation for evaluating delivery is
to reduce unnecessary costs to the government associated with excessive
leadtime. Id. at 2 n.3. We note that here the evaluated additional cost of a
delivery period nearly four times the requested period was small, if not
insignificant, relative to quoted prices, as reflected in the fact that the
ranking of closely competitive priced quotations with substantially
different delivery periods did not change as a result of the evaluation. See
Agency Report at 3-4. It is reasonable to assume, as alleged, that the
protester would have quoted a much lower price had it elected not to meet
the requested short delivery period and proposed a delivery period of a much
longer length as stated in the other quotations. Thus, in such situations,
the agency, by not alerting competitors to the relative importance of
delivery, unnecessarily may be foregoing potential cost savings resulting
from lower quotation prices. It does not appear prudent to seek superiority
in one area (such as delivery leadtime here) at the expense of potential
cost savings, when there is little burden associated with issuing an RFQ
that can help accomplish both goals, i.e., by disclosing the relative
importance of any evaluation factor that the agency does choose to identify
in the RFQ.

2. The agency agrees that the terms of the SPA apply to this procurement.
Agency Report at 2. The SPA states that its terms "may be used in
conjunction with simplified purchases," and that the SPA "establishes terms,
conditions, and provisions applicable to [RFQs] and Purchase Orders issued
by [the agency] for simplified purchases not exceeding the Simplified
Acquisition Threshold." Agency Report, Tab 3, SPA, at 1, 3. The RFQ,
however, did not incorporate or otherwise reference the SPA.