TITLE:  American Floor Consultants & Installations, Inc., B-294934; B-294934.2, December 16, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294934; B-294934.2
DATE:  December 16, 2004

**********************************************************************

   Decision

   Matter of:   American Floor Consultants & Installations, Inc.

   File:            B-294934; B-294934.2

   Date:           December 16, 2004

   Clayton W. King for the protester.

   Eric Kattner, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Where, in response to agency request that protester clarify whether its
quotation was based on the brand name or an "equal" product, protester
provided evidence that it was a certified installer of a product other
than the brand name, agency reasonably concluded that protester's
quotation was based on providing an equal product, and therefore properly
rejected the quotation for failure to include required descriptive
literature for that product.

   DECISION

   American Floor Consultants & Installations, Inc. protests the rejection of
its quotation in response to request for quotations (RFQ) No.
FA4887-04-T-0036, issued by the Department of the Air Force for
installation of an epoxy floor system in hangar 840 at Luke Air Force
Base.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ, issued under simplified acquisition procedures, specified
installation of Garland Floor Company products, or equal.  Vendors quoting
an "equal" product were required to submit descriptive literature to
establish that the product was equivalent to the specified brand-name
product.  RFQ at 4.  A purchase order was to be issued to the vendor that
quoted the lowest price and met or exceeded the RFQ requirements.   

   American Floor submitted its quotation by the September 27, 2004 deadline,
but the quotation did not specify whether it was based on the brand name
or an equal product.  On September 29, the Air Force sent an e-mail
requesting that American Floor "clarify what you're offering."  Agency
Report (AR), Tab 10.  The protester responded with an e-mail stating
that "this is the certified installer letter for your records.  I will be
sending over to you the product equals once they have been forwarded to me
by the manufacturer."  Id.  The e-mail included a copy of an August 27,
2004 notice from Micor Company, Inc. stating that:  "To:  Whom it May
Concern . . . The intent of this letter is to state that American Floor
Co., . . . is a certified installer of the Micor Company product line." 
On September 30, the Air Force notified American Floor that it was
rejecting the firm's quotation because it was based on an equal product
but did not include the required descriptive literature; the Air Force
therefore could not determine whether it was equivalent to the
brand-name product.  Thereafter, the Air Force issued a purchase order
to Techniquex Coating Systems.

   American Floor raises a number of challenges to the procurement.  In
reviewing a protest against an allegedly improper evaluation under
simplified acquisition procedures, we examine the record to ensure that
the agency reasonably exercised its discretion and evaluated quotations in
accordance with the terms of the solicitation.  West Coast Research Corp.,
B-281359, B-281359.2, Feb. 1, 1999, 99-1A CPD P 27 at 3.  We have
reviewed the record and find no basis to question the agency's actions. 
We address the protester's principal arguments below.

   American Floor asserts that the rejection of its quotation was improper
because it in fact was based on the brand name, not an equal product, and
therefore was not required to include descriptive literature.  American
Floor asserts that it submitted the information from Micor only to
demonstrate that it was a certified installer of flooring, not to
demonstrate that it intended to use Micor products.

   The agency reasonably rejected the protester's quotation here.  In
response to the agency's request that American Floor clarify what it was
quoting, the protester did not state that it was offering the brand name. 
Instead, American Floor submitted a statement from Micor that the
protester was a certified installer of Micor products, and a statement
that it would submit the "product equals" when they were received from the
manufacturer.  The agency reasonably interpreted this response to its
specific question as indicating that American Floor was quoting on an
"equal" Micor product rather than the brand name; indeed, we think this is
the only reasonable interpretation of the protester's response.  While the
protester asserts that it submitted the letter from Micor only to
demonstrate its qualifications, not to suggest that it would not use the
brand name products, this simply was not clear from its response.  We
conclude that the Air Force reasonably determined that the protester's
quotation was based on an equal product, and that the agency therefore
properly rejected the quotation for failure to include the required
descriptive literature demonstrating the equivalence of its quoted product
to the brand-name product.

   American Floor also complains, based on an e-mail in which Techniquex
clarified certain items in its quotation, that the agency improperly held
discussions with only Techniquex, and should have conducted similar
discussions with American Floor.  The Air Force responds that it did not
hold discussions with any vendor that responded to the RFQ.  In this
regard, the Air Force reports that, while Techniquex was requested to and
did clarify certain items in its quotation--as permitted under Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) SS 15.306(a), 13.106-2(b)(1)(2)--Techniquex
was not requested or permitted to revise its quotation.  Discussions occur
when a procuring agency provides a vendor with the opportunity to revise
or modify its quotation.  Priority One Servs., Inc., B-288836, B-288836.2,
Dec. 17, 2001, 2002 CPD PA 79 at 5.  Thus, there is no basis for finding
that the Air Force engaged in discussions with Techniquex.[1] 

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] American Floor asserts that Techniquex Coating Systems was not
eligible to receive a purchase order because it was not registered in the
Central Contractor Registration data base prior to award, as required by
FAR S 4.1102(a).  Since the Air Force properly found that American Floor
submitted an unacceptable quotation, and there were other vendors eligible
for award, American Floor is not an interested party to challenge the
award to Techniquex.  Sterling Servs., Inc., B-291625, B-291626, Jan.
14, 2003, 2003 CPD P 26 at 2.
