TITLE: B-298946, Allmond & Company, January 9, 2007
BNUMBER: B-298946
DATE: January 9, 2007
********************************************
B-298946, Allmond & Company, January 9, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Allmond & Company

   File: B-298946

   Date: January 9, 2007

   Ira E. Hoffman, Esq., Hoffman & Associates, P.C., for the protester.

   Sheryl A. Butler, Esq., Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
   Administration, for the agency.

   Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   When conducting a procurement under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)
   program, contracting agency satisfies applicable statutory and regulatory
   competition requirements when it solicits quotations from at least three
   FSS contractors able to meet the agency's needs; the agency is not
   required to solicit the incumbent FSS contractor to participate in the
   competition.

   DECISION

   Allmond & Company protests the failure of the Department of Justice, Drug
   Enforcement Administration (DEA), to provide it a copy of request for
   quotations (RFQ) No. 06-FN-0055, issued under the General Services
   Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program for accounting
   support services. Allmond, the incumbent FSS contractor, has provided
   these services to DEA since 2001. Allmond maintains that DEA improperly
   failed to solicit the firm for the follow-on requirements.

   We deny the protest.

   In 2001, DEA established a blank purchase agreement (BPA) with Allmond
   under its FSS contract No. GS-25F-0111L for financial and accounting
   services for the period of April 24, 2001 through April 23, 2006. Task
   orders were issued under the BPA on an annual basis. On September 23,
   2005, via modification No. 4, the agency extended Allmond's BPA through
   September 29, 2006.

   On September 18, 2006, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation
   (FAR) sect. 8.405-2, captioned "Ordering procedures for services requiring
   a statement of work," DEA issued the RFQ at issue here in order to
   establish a new BPA for the services, again under GSA's FSS program. The
   RFQ contained a performance-based statement of work and evaluation
   criteria in accordance with the referenced FAR provision. DEA provided the
   RFQ to five small businesses, each of which held an FSS contract under
   GSA's Special Item No. 520, Category 12, entitled "Financial and Business
   Solutions Complementary Financial Management Services." DEA did not
   provide the RFQ to Allmond.

   Of the five firms solicited, DEA received two quotations by the closing
   date of September 25, 2006. On September 26, 3 days before its BPA was to
   expire, Allmond requested a copy of the RFQ from DEA. DEA declined to
   provide a copy of the RFQ to Allmond on the basis that the firm's request
   was not timely, that is, Allmond made the request after the closing date
   for receipt of quotations.

   The agency evaluated the two quotations received and determined that the
   quotation from Bradson Corporation represented the best value to the
   government. Accordingly, on September 29, DEA established a BPA with
   Bradson for the period of September 29, 2006 through December 31, 2007.

   Allmond complains that in not furnishing the firm a copy of the RFQ, DEA
   improperly denied it, the incumbent FSS contractor since 2001, an
   opportunity to compete for DEA's follow-on requirements.

   The FSS program, which is directed and managed by GSA, provides federal
   agencies with a simplified process for obtaining commonly used commercial
   supplies and services at prices associated with volume buying. FAR sect.
   8.402(a). The procedures established for the FSS program satisfy the
   general statutory requirement for full and open competition. See 41 U.S.C.
   sect. 259(b)(3) (2000); FAR sections 6.102(d)(3), 8.404(a); Sales Res.
   Consultants, Inc., B-284943, B-284943.2, June 9, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 102
   at 3.

   In this case, the agency issued the RFQ for its follow-on requirements to
   five FSS contractors, two of which submitted quotations. Generally, for
   orders not exceeding the maximum order threshold, the solicitation of
   quotations from three FSS contractors able to meet the agency's needs is
   adequate. FAR sect. 8.405-2(c)(2)(ii); see Computer Universal, Inc.,
   B-291890, B-291890.2, Apr. 8, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 81 at 2. The applicable
   statute[1] and regulations simply do not require an agency to solicit the
   incumbent FSS contractor. See Cybertech Group, Inc. v. United States, 48
   Fed. Cl. 638, 648 (2001). Accordingly, we conclude that DEA complied with
   the applicable competition requirements here.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] In its comments on the agency report, the protester argues that DEA's
   failure to solicit it is inconsistent with the language in 41 U.S.C. sect.
   259(b)(3) which provides that FSS procedures constitute competitive
   procedures if "participation in the program has been open to all
   responsible sources," 41 U.S.C. sect. 259(b)(3)(A), and "orders and
   contracts under such procedures result in the lowest overall cost
   alternative to meet the needs of the Government." 41 U.S.C. sect.
   259(b)(3)(B). The protester misinterprets the statutory language. First,
   subparagraph (a) refers not to a specific procurement, but to whether the
   "program"--meaning the FSS program--has been open to all responsible
   offerors, a fact not in dispute here. See Sales Res. Consultants, Inc.,
   supra. Second, subparagraph (b) refers to the agency's determination
   regarding what its needs are and which FSS services (or supplies) meet
   those needs at the lowest overall cost. Id.; Delta Int'l, Inc.,
   B-284364.2, May 11, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 78 at 4.