TITLE:  AVL Books.Com, Inc., B-295780, March 28, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295780
DATE:  March 28, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   AVL Books.Com, Inc.

   File:            B-295780

   Date:           March 28, 2005

   Anesta Lenhardt for the protester.

   Georgia Vlahos, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

   Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging agency's oral amendment to solicitation is denied
where oral notice adequately advised firms of agency's added requirement.

   DECISION

   AVL Books.Com, Inc. protests the evaluation of its quotation under request
for quotations (RFQ) No. N00128-05-Q-0032, issued by the Naval Supply
Systems Command for medical journal subscriptions.  AVL Books asserts that
online claims processing capability was improperly used as an evaluation
criterion because AVL Books had not received proper notice that online
claims processing was being added as a requirement to the RFQ.

   We deny the protest.

   On December 3, 2004, a presolicitation notice synopsizing this procurement
appeared on the Federal Business Opportunities website.  The RFQ requested
quotations for annual subscriptions, starting January 1, 2005, for over
200 medical journals for the Naval Hospital's medical library.  The RFQ
did not list online claims processing capabilities as a requirement.  The
response date was December 14.  The contracting officer received six
quotations by the response date, including one from AVL Books.   She
rejected two of the quotations as nonresponsive; AVL Books' and three
others were considered responsive.

   According to the agency, the contracting officer contacted the medical
librarian to inform her of the four responsive quotations, and the
librarian asked the contracting officer whether those four respondents
offered an online claims and tracking service, whereby the librarian could
track periodicals and claim credit against the subscription price for
missing issues.  Although online claims and tracking capability was
considered important to meet the medical library's needs, the solicitation
did not list this service as a requirement.  Because time was short--the
subscriptions were to begin in approximately 2 weeks--the contracting
officer and the medical librarian called each of the respondents, except
the incumbent, to ask whether they could provide this service.  The
incumbent was known to offer online claims processing.

   Two of the three vendors who were telephoned reported that they did
provide online claims processing, and those two followed up their
telephone call with the contracting officer and the librarian with written
confirmation of their ability to provide that service.  AVL Books said
that it provided claims processing by e-mail, telephone, and fax.  Protest
at 1.  It did not issue any written follow-up to the telephone call.

   On January 13, 2005, the contracting officer issued an order to Basch
Subscriptions, which had submitted the lowest total subscription price of
the three responsive offerors who were able to supply online claims
processing.  AVL Books protested to our Office on January 24.

   AVL Books asserts that the telephone inquiry from the contracting officer
and the librarian was not adequate notice that online claims processing
services were being added as a requirement to the solicitation.  AVL Books
asserts that, as a result of the inadequate notice, AVL Books was deprived
of the opportunity to compete on the amended solicitation.

   It is a fundamental principle of government procurement that competition
must be conducted on an equal basis, that is, offerors must be treated
equally and be provided with a common basis for the preparation of their
proposals.  Systems Mgmt., Inc.; Qualimetrics, Inc., B-287032.3,
B-287032.4, Apr. 16, 2001, 2001 CPD P 85 at 8.  When, either before or
after receipt of proposals, the government changes or relaxes its
requirements, it must issue an amendment to notify all offerors of the
changed requirements and give them an opportunity to respond.  Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S 15.206(a).  If time is of the essence,
however, the contracting officer may make an oral notice of the
amendment.  FAR S 15.206(f).  While the contracting officer must then
document the file and formalize the notice with an amendment, id., where
the agency has adequately advised the offerors of its changed
requirements, the failure to formally amend the solicitation is not
significant.  Ram Enters., Inc., B-221924, June 24, 1986, 86-1 CPD P 581
at 3. 

   Here, although AVL Books asserts generally that the agency's telephone
inquiry did not adequately communicate that online claims processing was
an agency requirement, we find its assertion unpersuasive.  As noted
above, AVL Books was one of three firms that the contracting officer
questioned about its online claims processing capabilities.  Both of the
other two firms understood the question to mean that online claims
processing capability was now an evaluation factor.  Both firms,
apparently of their own accord, followed up the telephone call from the
contracting officer with a written confirmation to the contracting officer
of their ability to provide that additional contract service.  Under these
circumstances, we conclude that the telephone call from the contracting
officer and the medical librarian was adequate notice to all offerors that
online claims processing capability had been added as a requirement to the
solicitation. 

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel