TITLE:  Southeast Technical Services, B-289065, December 20, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-289065
DATE:  December 20, 2001
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: Southeast Technical Services

File: B-289065

Date: December 20, 2001

Robert Gibson for the protester.

Capt. Thomas A. Biediger, Alfred R. Nolting, Esq., and John G. Russell,
Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably determined that awardee's higher-priced quotation
represented better value than protester's lower-priced one, where protester
failed to provide required information demonstrating understanding of and
ability to perform the requirement, and agency determined that awardee's
manufacturer's certification demonstrated ability to perform and that its
quotation therefore was worth higher price.

DECISION

Southeast Technical Services protests the issuance of a purchase order to

Max Grigsby Company, Inc. d/b/a MGC, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ)
No. F41622-01-Q-0032, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the
installation of Fisher Hamilton laboratory furniture. Southeast contends
that it should have received the purchase order because its quoted price was
lower than MGC's.

We deny the protest.

On September 25, 2001, the Air Force posted a combined synopsis/solicitation
(the RFQ) on the Internet calling for the installation of Fisher Hamilton
laboratory furniture, a commercial item, using simplified acquisition
procedures. The RFQ set forth seven tasks, including, for example,
disconnecting plumbing and electrical casework, removing existing casework,
tops and sinks, removing concrete ledges, patching and painting, and
installing the laboratory furniture as recommended by the manufacturer. The
RFQ specified that vendors "shall address all the requirements in this
combined synopsis/solicitation, and shall provide clear evidence of
understanding and the ability and willingness to comply with the
Government's specifications of need." Agency Report (AR), Tab 9,
Synopsis/Solicitation, at 6. Quotations were to be evaluated based on
technical capability and price, with award to be made to the responsible
vendor whose quotation, conforming to the RFQ, was most advantageous to the
government, and the agency reserved the right to issue the purchase order
without discussions. Id. Quotations were due by September 28.

The agency evaluated three quotations--the protester's at $21,735, which was
submitted in response to the RFQ, and two others, including MGC's at $36,245
(the other is not relevant to the protest), which were received during
market research conducted by the agency a few weeks prior to the publication
of the synopsis/solicitation. [1] Although Southeast's price was low, it did
not furnish any information regarding its understanding and ability to
perform; it merely noted that Southeast had 35 years of experience with this
type of work, and stated that "[w]e understand all aspects of this project
and have installed this equipment before." AR, Tab 6, Southeast Quotation,
at 1. MGC's quotation also did not contain detailed information on
understanding and ability to perform, but did list the seven tasks required
to perform the work; noted special considerations for reusing existing
circuits, relocating circuits, and removing the concrete ledge under the
existing cabinets; and provided a 4-week installation timeframe. AR, Tab 8,
MGC's Quotation, at 1-2.

Because the agency could not determine from its quotation whether Southeast
understood and had the ability to perform the project, the agency requested
by telephone that the protester submit information that would allow the
agency to evaluate the protester's understanding of the project;
specifically, the agency asked the protester if it was a certified installer
of Fisher Hamilton furniture. Supplemental Memorandum of Law at 2-3. In
response, Southeast submitted a breakdown of its total price, consisting of
six separate dollar amounts, presumably corresponding in some way to the
seven project requirements listed in the combined synopsis/solicitation. AR,
Tab 6, Southeast Revised Quotation, at 2. No additional information
regarding Southeast's technical ability was included and the protester
declined to confirm or deny that it was certified to install Fisher Hamilton
furniture. Supplemental Memorandum of Law at 3.

On September 28, the contracting officer checked the Fisher Hamilton web
site, which lists all of the manufacturer's dealers by state, and found that
MGC was listed as a lab furniture dealer. [2] Contracting Officer's
Supplemental Statement at 1. See http:/fisherhamilton.com. This research
also showed that Southeast was not a dealer. This fact (Southeast does not
dispute it), together with the lack of information from Southeast, led the
agency to conclude that Southeast had not demonstrated an understanding of
the requirement or its ability to perform. At the same time, the agency
found that MGC's status as a dealer evidenced that firm's ability to install
the furniture according to the manufacturer's specifications, and therefore
concluded that MGC's higher-priced quotation represented the best value to
the government. AR, Tab 1, Memorandum of Law at 2-3. Accordingly, on
September 30, the contracting officer issued a purchase order to MGC.

Southeast asserts that it should have received the award based on its low
price. It claims the Air Force could not have determined that MGC was more
qualified to perform the work, and thus could not have made a proper best
value determination, because it never requested references or other
technical information on which to evaluate the offerors' qualifications.
Protest at 1; Protester's Comments at 1.

In reviewing protests against an allegedly improper simplified acquisition
evaluation and selection decision, we examine the record to determine
whether the competition was fair and consistent with the solicitation, and
whether the agency exercised its discretion reasonably. Elementar Americas,
Inc., B-282698, July 16, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 17 at 3.

The agency's actions here were reasonable. As noted, the RFQ expressly
advised vendors to address all the requirements and to provide clear
evidence of understanding and the ability to comply with the specifications.
The RFQ also specifically stated that the agency would evaluate quotations
on technical capability and price and issue a purchase order to the vendor
whose quotation was most advantageous to the government; nothing in the RFQ
suggested that award would be based on price alone. Despite the solicitation
instructions, Southeast's submittal included nothing to show that it
understood the requirement and no information regarding its technical
abilities. While MGC's quotation contained only limited information, that
information, together with the firm's association with Fisher Hamilton,
provided the agency with a clear basis for discriminating between the
proposals for purposes of the technical capability evaluation--it provided
the desired assurance that MGC would perform as required--and, ultimately,
the best value determination. Although status as a dealer (or certified
installer) was not specifically identified in the RFQ as an evaluation
consideration, since dealer status undisputedly related to technical
capability, we think the agency's reliance on it was unobjectionable. (This
is particularly so in light of the agency's broad discretion under the
simplified acquisition procedures. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
part 13; West Coast Research Corp., B-281359, B-281359.2, Feb. 1, 1999, 99-1
CPD para. 27 at 4.) Given that the agency had no information from which it could
determine that Southeast had the technical capability to perform the
requirement, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency's conclusion that
award to MGC was warranted despite its higher price.

Southeast asserts that MGC's quotation should not have been considered
because it was not submitted in response to the RFQ. However, there is no
requirement that agencies consider only quotations in response to an RFQ;
under FAR sect. 13.103, a standing quotation properly may be considered in a
simplified acquisition if it is current. As noted above, MGC's quotation,
received in connection with the agency's earlier attempt to have the
laboratory furniture installed, was current, with an acceptance period of 45
days after September 5. Southeast claims that MGC gained an unfair
competitive advantage by submitting its quotation before the solicitation
was advertised. However, both MGC's and Southeast's quotations were
evaluated on the same basis, and the award decision had nothing to do with
the times at which the quotations were submitted. There thus is no basis for
finding that MGC enjoyed an unfair advantage.

The protester contends that the agency improperly failed to advertise the
RFQ at least 10 days prior to the due date, and improperly favored local
contractors, since it contacted only MGC and another local vendor before the
solicitation was issued. Since Southeast was able to compete, and does not
contend that it did not have adequate time to prepare and submit its
quotation, we fail to see how it was prejudiced by these alleged
improprieties. We will not sustain a protest absent a

showing of prejudice. See McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD
para. 54 at 3; see Statistica Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed.
Cir. 1996).

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. When the agency initially identified its need for laboratory furniture,
it conducted market research to identify furniture suppliers and installers.
Although, during this research, MGC and another firm submitted quotations
for installation, the agency determined that funds were not immediately
available for installation. Thereafter, potential biological threats
associated with current events made installation an urgent requirement and
the agency received funding. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. MGC's
quotation, with a 45-day acceptance period, was dated and received September
5. AR, Tab 1, Memorandum of Law, at 4; AR, Tab 8, MGC Quotation, at 1.

2. Although the agency characterizes MGC's status, as reflected on the web
site, as that of a "certified installer" rather than a dealer, we find no
reference to certified installers on the site. However, this does not appear
to be a material distinction, since the protester does not challenge the
agency's characterization, and the web site indicates that the dealers are
particularly qualified to install the furniture; the dealers are described
as "talented project management specialists who prefer to get involved in
the earliest planning stages," and will participate in "design, budget,
product management and installation . . . . [w]hether it's product
renovation or entirely new construction . . . ." In response to Southeast's
protest, the agency requested that MGC confirm that it was certified by
Fisher Hamilton. MGC provided this confirmation in a memorandum dated
October 2. AR, Tab 5, MGC Memorandum, at 1.