TITLE: B-298300, The Ideal Solution, LLC, July 10, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298300
DATE: July 10, 2006
************************************************
B-298300, The Ideal Solution, LLC, July 10, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: The Ideal Solution, LLC

   File: B-298300

   Date: July 10, 2006

   Bob Gardner III for the protester.

   Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Department of Interior, for the agency.

   Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that awardee, as the incumbent contractor, had an unfair
   competitive advantage because only it knew that additional funding would
   be provided to reimburse certain expenses is denied where the agency's
   award selection was based upon the vendors' proposed fixed rates and the
   solicitation informed vendors that expenses under line item two would be
   reimbursed at actual costs plus general and administrative rates and fixed
   profit rates up to a not-to-exceed amount, which was to be determined at
   the time of award.

   DECISION

   The Ideal Solution, LLC (TIS) protests the award of a blanket purchase
   order to AER Enterprises under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
   06HQQQ0013, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the
   Interior, for logistical support services.

   We deny the protest.[1]

   The RFQ, issued electronically under the simplified acquisition procedures
   of Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 13, provided for the award of a
   blanket purchase agreement for a base with three option years for
   logistical support services in organizing, coordinating and managing
   international events. RFQ at 6-7. Vendors were required to submit past
   performance references and a quotation demonstrating technical ability,
   and were informed that award of a blanket purchase order would be based
   upon an evaluation of vendors' price, past performance, and technical
   ability.

   The RFQ requested price quotations for two line items. The first line item
   (for logistical support services) requested loaded hourly rates for an
   estimated 155 hours and the second item (for travel and incidental
   expenses) requested general and administrative (G&A) and fixed profit
   rates. Vendors were informed that the successful vendor would be
   reimbursed its actual costs for line item two up to a not-to-exceed
   amount, which would be determined at the time of award.

   USGS received quotations from three vendors, including AER (the incumbent
   vendor) and TIS. Following communications concerning the vendors' price
   quotations, best and final quotations were received from both vendors.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 2.

   In the final evaluation, the agency found that AER submitted the
   lowest-priced quotation, had outstanding past performance, and provided an
   excellent understanding of the contract requirements. With respect to TIS,
   the agency found that although the protester had submitted a competitively
   priced quotation, TIS's quotation "did not meet all the requirements in
   the tasks in the scope of work" and that TIS's quoted price was higher
   than that of AER. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Contracting Officer's
   Procurement Summary, Apr. 27, 2006, at 3. Award was made to AER, and this
   protest followed.

   TIS complains that the award to AER was not based upon the solicitation's
   stated 155 hours for logistical support service but also included
   additional funding for other costs. TIS contends that only AER, as the
   incumbent contractor, was aware of this additional funding, which provided
   the awardee with an unfair competitive advantage.

   The record contains no evidence that AER received an unfair competitive
   advantage as a result of its incumbency. Rather, the record shows that
   USGS based its award determination upon the fixed rates proposed by AER
   and TIS under line item number one and that AER had submitted a superior
   quotation. Id. In this regard, AER submitted lower rates than TIS under
   line item number one for the base and option years. With respect to TIS's
   complaint that the agency included additional funding for future expenses,
   this additional funding was included under line item number two at a
   not-to-exceed amount of $9,956. As vendors were informed by the
   solicitation, expenses under line item number two would be reimbursed at
   actual costs plus the vendors' quoted G&A and profit rates, see RFQ,
   attach. A, Pricing Table, at 1; thus, vendors should have been aware that
   additional funding would be obligated against this line item to allow for
   reimbursement of future expenses and that additional funding would have
   been added to the purchase order for any vendor that received the order.
   TIS has provided no basis why this provided AER with an unfair competitive
   advantage.

   The protest is denied.[2]

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Because a protective order was not issued in connection with the
   protest, this decision is necessarily general.

   [2] TIS also complains that USGS refused to provide the protester with a
   debriefing. Whether or not an agency provides a debriefing and the
   adequacy of a debriefing are not issues that our Office will consider,
   because the scheduling and conduct of a debriefing is a procedural matter
   that does not involve the validity of an award. See Symplicity Corp.,
   B-297060, Nov. 8, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 203 at 4 n.4; Canadian Commercial
   Corp., B-222515, July 16, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 73 at 5.