TITLE:  Kloppenburg Enterprises, Inc., B-294709, December 10, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294709
DATE:  December 10, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Kloppenburg Enterprises, Inc.

   File:            B-294709

   Date: December 10, 2004

   Bruce Kloppenburg for the protester.

   William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for Alutiiq Management Services,
LLC, the intervenor.

   Robert Schildkraut, Esq., Department of Defense Education Activity, for
the agency.

   Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.A A A A A  Protester is not prejudiced by the award of a contract to a
contractor whose office for the administration of the contract was not
registered in the central contractor registration (CCR) database at the
time of the award, where the contractor's corporate office was registered
in the CCR database before award, the contracting officer confirmed before
award that the contractor would promptly register its administering
office, and the awardee did so.

   2.A A A A A  In a negotiated procurement in which technical merit was
stated to be more important than price, selection of the lower priced
proposal was proper where the protester's and the awardee's proposals were
found technically equal.

   DECISION

   Kloppenburg Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Alutiiq
Management Services, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No.
HE1254-04-R-0020, issued by the Department of Defense Education Activity
(DoDEA) for school bus drivers and safety attendants in Guam.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year
with 2A option years for school bus drivers and safety attendants to
transport students from schools operated by DoDEA for dependents of
military service members and civilian employees in Guam.  See RFP amend.
A001, at 7.  Among other things, the RFP required that offerors furnish a
Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and be registered in the
central contractor registration (CCR) database.  Id. at 113.  A DUNS
number (used as the Contractor Identification Number in federal contracts)
is assigned by Dun and Bradstreet Information Services, and different DUNS
numbers are assigned for each of a contractor's differing locations or
addresses or legal divisions.[1]  The CCR is a database used to collect
and manage contractor information, including taxpayer identification
numbers and electronic fund transfer information.[2]  See Central
Contractor Registration Handbook (MayA 2004) at 3.

   Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best-value basis
considering technical, past performance, and price.  The RFP stated that
the technical and past performance factors were equally important and
together were more important than price.  See RFP amend.A A001, at 114-18.

   The agency received four proposals, including those of Kloppenburg and
Alutiiq (the incumbent contractor and an Alaskan Native Corporation). 
Alutiiq's proposal of  $2,420,502 was the lowest-priced offer, and
Kloppenburg's proposal of $2,865,076 was next lowest-priced offer.[3]  The
agency's technical evaluation team evaluated the proposals against the
evaluation factors, by identifying strengths and weaknesses in each
proposal and assigning a rating to each technical proposal.  Kloppenburg's
and Alutiiq's proposals were both rated exceptional under the technical
factor and good under the past performance factor, and were considered
technically equal.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 20, Technical Evaluation
Report, at 2.  In addition, the firms' proposed prices were determined to
be fair and reasonable.  See AR, Tab 21, Source Selection Memorandum, at
2.

   Award was made to Alutiiq on the basis of that firm's low price, and
Kloppenburg protested the award to the agency, complaining, among other
things, that Alutiiq did not have a DUNS number and was not registered in
the CCR database at the time of award and that the RFP should have
provided for electronic submission of proposals.  DoDEA denied
Kloppenburg's agency-level protest, and Kloppenburg filed this protest
with our Office.

   With respect to Kloppenburg's complaint that Alutiiq did not have a DUNS
number and was not registered in the CCR database before award, the record
shows that Alutiiq, the incumbent contractor, did in fact have a DUNS
number for its main corporate office in Anchorage, Alaska and that office
was registered in the CCR database.  AR, Tab 23, Alutiiq CCR
Registration.  Alutiiq proposed to use its Chesapeake, Virginia office to
administer the contract and receive contract payments.  See Intervenor's
Comments at 1.  Although that office had its own DUNS number, it was not
separately registered in the CCR database.  On July 12, prior to award,
DoDEA informed Alutiiq that it needed to obtain an additional CCR
registration to reflect the address of the office that would receive
payments under the contract, and on this same date Alutiiq informed DoDEA
that it would "make immediate arrangements with my home office in
Anchorage to establish a new CCR registration and cage code for this
contract changing the address to our office in Chesapeake, Virginia."  AR,
Tab 23, E-mail from Alutiiq to DoDEA, July 12, 2004.  Award was made to
Alutiiq on July 14 based upon Alutiiq's CCR registration for its corporate
office, and the contract was modified on July 24 to reflect Alutiiq's new
CCR registration for its Chesapeake office.  Contract mod. P00001. 

   Although we recognize that it is the agency's obligation to ensure that
prospective contractors are registered in the CCR database before award,
see FAR SA 4.1102(a), Kloppenburg has failed to establish that it was
prejudiced by the award to Alutiiq before the firm's Chesapeake office was
registered.  Competitive prejudice is necessary before we will sustain a
protest; where the record does not demonstrate that the protester would
have had a reasonable chance of receiving award but for the agency's
actions, we will not sustain a protest, even if deficiencies in the
procurement process are found.  McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996,
96-1 CPD P 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577,
1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  Here, DoDEA made award to Alutiiq only after
confirming that Alutiiq's Chesapeake office would promptly register in the
CCR database, and Alutiiq did so.  Although the agency should have awaited
the registration of Alutiiq's Chesapeake office in the CCR database before
making award, Kloppenburg has failed to establish that it was prejudiced
by this error.  See Graves Constr., Inc., B-294032, June 29, 2004, 2004
CPD P 135 at 3.

   Kloppenburg also challenges the agency's best-value determination,
complaining that DoDEA emphasized Alutiiq's low price over Kloppenburg's
allegedly superior skills and past performance.  As noted above, DoDEA
made award on the basis of price because the two proposals were considered
essentially technically equal.  Kloppenburg, despite having had the
opportunity to challenge the agency's conclusion that the proposals were
technically equal, has not disputed the evaluation of proposals or the
determination that the proposals were technically equal, other than to
state the protester's belief that Alutiiq has no prior experience in bus
operations.  The record does not support this belief, given that Alutiiq
is the incumbent contractor for this requirement.  Because we have no
basis to question the reasonableness of DoDEA's determination that the
firms' proposals were technically equal, award was properly made to
Alutiiq based upon that firm's lower price.

   Kloppenburg also complains that the RFP was improperly issued as a
commercial item acquisition and did not provide for the use of electronic
commerce to receive proposals.  These complaints are untimely and are
dismissed.  Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests based upon alleged
apparent improprieties in a solicitation must be filed prior to the time
set for initial proposals.  See 4 C.F.R. SA 21.2(a)(1)A (2004).

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] Agencies are required to establish and maintain records on all
procurements exceeding $25,000 in the Federal Procurement Data System. 
See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S 4.601.  Contracting officers
are requested to identify and report DUNS numbers (Contractor
Identification Numbers) for successful offerors.  "If the successful
offeror does not provide its [DUNS] number, the contracting officer must
contact the offeror and assist them in obtaining the DUNS number."  See
FAR SA 4.602(d).

   [2] Prospective contractors are required to be registered in the CCR
database prior to award of a contract, except in certain specific
circumstances not applicable here.  See FAR SA 4.1102(a).

   [3] The government estimate was $2,375,029.
