TITLE: B-297702; B-297702.2, Draughn & Associates, February 15, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297702; B-297702.2
DATE: February 15, 2006
*************************************************************
B-297702; B-297702.2, Draughn & Associates, February 15, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Draughn & Associates

   File: B-297702; B-297702.2

   Date: February 15, 2006

   Joseph D. Gebhardt, Esq., Gebhardt & Associates, for the protester.

   Byron W. Waters, Esq., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
   Health Inspection Service, for the agency.

   Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency properly rejected protester's quotation where it reasonably
   determined that quotation failed to describe how solicitation's
   requirements would be met, as required by terms of solicitation.

   DECISION

   Draughn & Associates protests the issuance of delivery orders to three
   other vendors under U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and
   Plant Health Inspection Service request for quotations (RFQ) No.
   042-M-APHIS-05, for equal employment opportunity (EEO) investigative
   services. Draughn asserts that the agency improperly declined to consider
   its quotation.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ sought quotations from vendors holding contracts under the General
   Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) for EEO
   investigative services. As many as three indefinite-delivery,
   indefinite-quantity delivery orders were to be awarded to the vendors
   whose prices were lowest among those whose quotations were found to be
   technically acceptable (based on criteria not relevant here). Vendors were
   required to submit a detailed description of their capabilities to
   establish their ability to meet the technical evaluation criteria. RFQ
   at 1-2. A pricing schedule, as well as representations and certifications,
   were also to be submitted. The RFQ was posted on the GSA Advantage on-line
   e-Buy quotation system, and quotations were to be submitted electronically
   by May 26, 2005.

   Draughn states that it submitted a quotation electronically on May 24.
   Draughn also states that it contacted the agency on July 7 to inquire
   about the status of its quotation, and was advised by the contracting
   officer that it had not been received. On July 8, the protester submitted
   a letter to the agency to which it appended a table of prices for the RFQ
   requirements. On July 12, the protester was advised that its quotation
   would not be considered, and that the agency had issued four delivery
   orders to other vendors that were determined to have offered the lowest
   priced, technically acceptable quotations. The protester states that,
   subsequently, toward the end of November, it became aware of the
   successful vendors' pricing, and that its quoted pricing was lower.
   Shortly thereafter, Draughn filed this protest with our Office.

   Draughn maintains that it should have been awarded a delivery order based
   on the allegedly advantageous pricing it submitted with its July 8 letter
   to the agency.

   This argument is without merit. As noted, the RFQ required, among other
   things, that vendors include with their quotations a detailed description
   of their capabilities to meet the RFQ's technical evaluation criteria. The
   record shows that Draughn did not submit any information relating to its
   capabilities at the time it submitted its pricing information. The record
   further shows that the agency specifically considered Draughn's failure to
   submit information relating to its technical capabilities in its decision
   not to make an award to the vendor. Agency Price Negotiation Memorandum at
   4-5. In the absence of the required information, there was no basis for
   the agency to find Draughn's quotation technically acceptable. CDS Network
   Sys., Inc., B-281200, Dec. 21, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 154 at 3 (the absence
   of required information from a quotation properly found by agency to
   render quotation technically unacceptable).

   Draughn also seems to suggest that, because it previously performed work
   for the agency, its capabilities were known to the agency, and this should
   have been sufficient for the agency to find Draughn's quotation
   technically acceptable. However, it is generally proper for agencies to
   evaluate proposals or quotations based solely on the information
   submitted, and we believe that is the case here. Possehn Consulting,
   B-278579, Jan. 9, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 10 at 4-5. Accordingly, the
   agency's supposed prior knowledge of Draughn's capabilities did not
   require the agency to find Draughn's quotation acceptable. It follows that
   there is no basis for us to find the agency's actions unreasonable. 

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel