TITLE:  GMA Cover Corporation, B-288018, August 17, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-288018
DATE:  August 17, 2001
**********************************************************************
GMA Cover Corporation, B-288018, August 17, 2001

Decision

Matter of: GMA Cover Corporation

File: B-288018

Date: August 17, 2001

Marc A. King for the protester.

Walter R. Pierce, Esq., and Gail L. Booth, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency,
for the agency.

Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's failure to solicit a quote from the protester for an urgently
needed item under an oral solicitation conducted under simplified
acquisition procedures is unobjectionable where the contracting officer
solicited the sources that she was aware had supplied the item and she was
unaware of the protester's interest in submitting a quote, notwithstanding
that the protester had supplied the item for another agency and had
submitted quotes on prior agency simplified procedure acquisitions of the
item.

DECISION

GMA Cover Corporation protests the award of purchase order No.
SP0750-01-M-0990 to John Johnson Company for 120 fitted vehicular covers by
the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio (DSCC).
GMA contends that DSCC improperly denied GMA the opportunity to compete for
the order.

We deny the protest.

In April 2001, DSCC determined that it had an urgent requirement for 120
fitted vehicular covers, National Stock Number (NSN) No. 2540-01-472-5091.
DSCC had no supplies on hand of the item, which is a "Level A" weapon system
supporting the "Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles" critical to the
protection of troops and supplies, so that accelerated award and delivery of
the item were required. Contracting Officer's Report at 1; Agency Report,
Tab 4, Statement of Urgency.

To identify sources for this urgent requirement, the contracting officer
consulted the Haystacks System, which is a computerized database list of
sources that have previously provided various NSN items to the agency. Three
sources, two of which were small businesses, were listed in the system as
prior suppliers of this cover. Neither GMA nor Johnson was listed in
Haystacks. One of the listed sources contacted identified Johnson, a small
business, as the actual manufacturer of the item it had supplied. Using the
simplified acquisition procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
part 13, the contracting officer orally solicited quotes from Johnson and
one of the small businesses listed in Haystacks, because both had previously
supplied or manufactured the cover and were believed to be capable of timely
delivering the item. [1] Based on the responses, award was made on May 25 to
Johnson at a price of $65,251.20. After DSCC denied GMA's agency-level
protest, this protest followed.

GMA protests that DSCC improperly denied GMA the opportunity to compete by
orally soliciting quotes and not publicly announcing the procurement. GMA
states that it holds a contract to supply similar covers with the United
States Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) and has previously
submitted quotes to DSCC for the item being procured here as recently as
January 2001. GMA argues that DSCC should therefore have been aware that GMA
was a source for this item and researched more references than Haystacks for
qualified manufacturers.

Under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), procurements
conducted using simplified acquisition procedures--used to purchase supplies
and services, including construction, research and development, and
commercial items, the aggregate amount of which does not exceed
$100,000--are excepted from the general requirement that agencies obtain
full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures when
conducting procurements. 10 U.S.C. sect.sect. 2304(a)(1)(A), (g)(1), (g)(3) (1994 &
Supp. IV 1998). These simplified procedures, implemented in FAR part 13, are
designed to promote efficiency and economy in contracting and to avoid
unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. To facilitate these stated
objectives, FASA requires only that agencies obtain competition to the
maximum extent practicable when they utilize simplified acquisition
procedures. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(g)(3); see FAR sect. 13.104; Aleman & Assocs.,
Inc., B-287275, May 17, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 93 at 3. This standard is usually
met if an agency solicits at least three sources. However, the competition
may be limited to fewer than three, including limiting the competition to
only one source reasonably capable of performing the work, and the
solicitation conducted orally without public notice, if the agency's needs
must be satisfied on an urgent basis. See FAR sect.sect. 5.202(a)(2), 13.104(b),
13.106-1(a)(1)(iii), 13.106-1(b), 13.106-1(c).

As discussed above, to expedite the process DSCC orally solicited only those
small business firms that it believed were capable of meeting the agency's
urgent requirement. [2] Since the simplified acquisition procedures
specifically allow an agency to solicit sources to fulfill an urgent
requirement on this basis, DSCC's actions complied with the regulations
applicable to this circumstance. Although GMA argues that DSCC should have
conducted a more comprehensive search of other resources, such as other
parts lists and the Small Business Administration, DSCC did not act
improperly by failing to undertake such an effort.

GMA argues that DSCC should have been aware of GMA due to its previous
quotes to DSCC for this item, and correspondence from TACOM to DSCC
informing the agency of the technical acceptability of GMA's covers. [3] The
contracting officer advises that GMA was not solicited because she was
simply unaware that GMA was an acceptable source. Contracting Officer's
Report at 4. There is no showing that the contracting officer was aware that
GMA was interested in submitting a quote for this requirement. As admitted
by GMA, the item it has supplied under the TACOM contract is not designated
by the NSN applicable to this procurement, so it could not be searched for
under the agency's database. Further, DSCC states that all prior purchases
of the item were conducted under simplified procedures and the agency does
not, and is not required to, maintain a list of prior quoters for purchases
conducted under these procedures. In the absence of any evidence that the
contracting officer should have been aware of GMA's desire to be solicited,
such as either a specific request by GMA to compete for this order or its
notifying DSCC of its desire to compete for this requirement, there is no
basis to find that the agency improperly excluded GMA from the competition.
See Aleman & Assocs., Inc., supra.; Gateway Cable Co., B-223157 et al.,
Sept. 22, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 333 at 4-5.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. The other listed small business source was not solicited because of prior
delinquent performance.

2. There is no merit to the protester's suggestion that the award of the
order is somehow questionable because Johnson is not listed in Haystack and
the agency did not initially advise the protester how it came to solicit
Johnson. The agency has fully explained in the agency report how Johnson was
solicited and we see nothing improper in Johnson being solicited.

3. GMA, in response to supplemental agency comments, submitted a memorandum
dated May 12, 2001 from TACOM to the Commander of DSCC advising it of the
technical acceptability of GMA vehicular covers to meet DSCC's requirements
for covers.