TITLE: B-299883, Paraclete Contracts, September 11, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299883
DATE: September 11, 2007
*************************************************
B-299883, Paraclete Contracts, September 11, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Paraclete Contracts

   File: B-299883

   Date:  September 11, 2007

   Jerry Hughen, Paraclete Contracts, for the protester.

   Richard Martinelli, Esq., Naval Inventory Control Point, for the agency.

   Eric M. Ransom, John L. Formica, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq.,
   participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protester's offer for anti-contamination gloves was properly rejected
   where the protester mistakenly entered its prices on a total price rather
   than per-pair basis and the protester's intended price was not apparent
   from the face of the offer.

   2. Agency properly found the awardee's proposed prices to be fair and
   reasonable where the prices were lower than prices obtained by the agency
   over the past several years.

   DECISION

   Paraclete Contracts protests the award of a contract to ISA Corporation
   under solicitation No. N00104-07-Q-BZ53, issued by the Naval Inventory
   Control Point (NAVICP) for anti-contamination gloves. Paraclete asserts
   that NAVICP improperly rejected its offer due to an erroneous
   interpretation of its proposed price. Paraclete also asserts that ISA's
   price was unreasonably high and its offer should not have been selected
   for the award.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   On March 13, 2007, NAVICP posted the solicitation on the Navy Electronic
   Commerce On-line (NECO) website,[1] requesting offers for 433,265 pairs of
   various sizes of anti-contamination gloves, used by Navy personnel in
   nuclear environments. NAVICP considers anti-contamination gloves to be
   "commercial items" within the definition set forth in Federal Acquisition
   Regulation (FAR) sect. 2.101, and issued the solicitation using simplified
   acquisition procedures as permitted by FAR sect. 13.500. The solicitation
   listed the number of pairs of gloves being procured by size, and required
   offerors to insert their prices for each size of glove on a per-pair
   basis. The solicitation also incorporated FAR clause 52.212-1(g), which
   stated the government's intent to evaluate offers and award a contract
   without discussions.[2]

   NAVICP received four offers in response to the solicitation. Two were
   eliminated for failure to include a price for each line item, leaving only
   ISA and Paraclete in the competition. ISA offered prices of $14 for line
   item 0001 and $4.75 for all other line items, which were consistent with
   the price history for each line item. Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, at 2, 7.
   Paraclete also included prices for each line item, however, Paraclete's
   prices were dramatically higher than the price history and contained
   additional notations, as follows; "$6,661.20 Wholesale" for line item 0001
   (calling for 1,092 pairs of gloves), "$27,503.25 Wholesale Price per
   Dozen" for line item 0002 (36,671 pairs), "$3,983.25 Wholesale Price per
   Dozen" for line item 0003 (5,311 pairs), "$213,562.75 Wholesale Price per
   Dozen" for line item 0004AA (284,749 pairs), and "$79,081.50 Wholesale
   Price per Dozen" for line item 0004AB (105,442 pairs). AR, Tab 4, at 3-4.
   Paraclete also made the entry "$330,790.95" in the NECO "Price Quote No."
   box, an area intended for an offeror's internal tracking number.[3] AR,
   Tab 4, at 1; Tab 5 at 1.

   Upon reviewing Paraclete's offer, the contracting officer suspected a
   mistake in the pricing. After additional review, the contracting officer
   was unable to locate any obvious clerical errors such as apparent
   misplaced decimal points, and was unable to determine Paraclete's intended
   price. The contracting officer states that, consistent with his usual
   practice, he did not review the entry ($330,790.95) in the NECO "Price
   Quote No." box, since that area is not intended for the offeror's price
   submission.

   Unable to determine Paraclete's intended price, the contracting officer
   evaluated Paraclete's offer on the basis of the unit prices as provided,
   resulting in a total evaluated price of $70,187,294,720. The contracting
   officer then rejected Paraclete's offer due to its extremely high price
   and recommended award to ISA, whose offer was technically acceptable and
   whose total evaluated price of $2,068,109.75 was determined to be fair and
   reasonable. NAVICP made the award to ISA on May 16, and this protest
   followed.

   DISCUSSION

   Paraclete essentially raises two basis of protest.[4] First, Paraclete
   argues that the agency improperly rejected its offer due to an erroneous
   interpretation of its intended price. Specifically, although Paraclete
   acknowledges that it mistakenly entered its price on a total price per
   line item basis, rather than a per-pair basis, it contends that the
   contracting officer was, or should have been, aware of its mistake and
   could have determined its intended price. Additionally, Paraclete argues
   that, to the extent the contracting officer was unable to determine its
   intended price, the contracting officer should have contacted Paraclete
   for clarification. Second, Paraclete argues that ISA's price was
   unreasonably high and therefore its offer should not have been selected
   for the award.

   With regard to Paraclete's first basis of protest, NAVICP contends that
   Paraclete's price submission did not conform to the requirements of the
   solicitation and was subject to varying interpretations, and therefore
   could not be accepted. Additionally, NAVICP contends that it was not
   obligated to offer Paraclete an opportunity to clarify its offer and in
   fact could not have corrected the mistake in pricing through
   clarifications in any event.

   An offeror bears the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal
   that contains all of the information required under a solicitation,
   including required pricing. Battelle Memorial Inst., B-299533, May 14,
   2007, 2007 CPD para. 94. In this case, Paraclete's failure to quote on a
   per-pair basis, in combination with its additional notations--"Wholesale"
   and "Wholesale Price per Dozen"--rendered the existence of a mistake
   obvious, but the intended price impossible to determine with certainty.
   For instance, from Paraclete's quote of "$27,503.25 Wholesale Price per
   Dozen" for line item 0002, the contracting officer could not have
   determined whether Paraclete intended the price to be on the basis of
   pairs of gloves, dozens of gloves, dozens of pairs of gloves, or total
   price, or if Paraclete had made some other mistake in setting forth the
   unit or entering its prices into the NECO system. Due to the number of
   possible errors in, and interpretations of, Paraclete's quote, we agree
   that Paraclete's intended prices were not apparent from its offer and
   could not be accepted.[5]

   Paraclete also argues that it should have been given the opportunity to
   correct its pricing through clarifications. As a preliminary matter,
   where, as here, simplified acquisition procedures are used, the evaluation
   procedures provided for in FAR parts 14 and 15, including the procedures
   for the correction of mistakes, are not mandatory. See FAR sect.
   13.106-2(b); United Marine Int'l, LLC, B-281512, Feb. 22, 1999, 99-1 CPD
   para. 44 at 4. Further, although, in an appropriate case, an agency may
   allow an offeror to correct a mistake or clerical error in a price
   proposal through clarifications (as opposed to discussions), when it does
   so both the existence of the mistake or clerical error and the amount
   intended by the offeror must be apparent from the face of the offer. Joint
   Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A; Cofathec S.p.A; SEB.CO S.a.s;
   CO.PEL.S.a.s., B-298865, B-298865.2, Jan. 3, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 7 at 8.
   Because Paraclete's intended prices were not apparent on the face of its
   offer, correction of the mistake through clarifications would not have
   been proper. [6]

   Given that Paraclete's intended prices were not apparent from its offer,
   and that the agency was not obligated to allow Paraclete to correct its
   mistakes through clarifications (nor would it have been proper for the
   agency to do so), we conclude that the agency properly rejected
   Paraclete's offer.

   With regard to Paraclete's second basis of protest, that ISA's price was
   unreasonably high, NAVICP contends that ISA's price was properly
   determined to be fair and reasonable on the basis of a comparison with
   prices received in previous competitive solicitations. The FAR provides a
   number of price analysis techniques that may be used to determine whether
   prices are fair and reasonable, including comparison of the proposed price
   with prices found reasonable on previous purchases. FAR sections
   13.106-3(2)(ii); 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii). A price reasonableness determination
   is a matter of administrative discretion involving the exercise of
   business judgment by the contracting officer that we will question only
   where it is unreasonable. The Right One Co., B-290751.8, Dec. 9, 2002,
   2002 CPD para. 214 at 5.

   Our review of the record here provides no basis to question the
   reasonableness of the contracting officer's determination. Over the most
   recent four procurements for anti-contamination gloves, prices for line
   item 0001 have ranged from $15 to $17 per pair, and prices for all other
   line items have ranged from $5.20 to $6.80 per pair. As that acquisition
   history indicates, ISA's prices of $14 per pair for line item 0001 and
   $4.75 per pair for all other line items are the lowest prices that the
   Navy has obtained for anti-contamination gloves in the past several years.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] NECO is an Internet-based system that allows firms to submit their
   offers electronically.

   [2] The solicitation was issued using the standard form (SF 18) for
   requests for quotations and explained that the Navy had been authorized to
   use SF 18 instead of SF 1449, the form normally used for commercial item
   acquisitions. Since this is a commercial item acquisition using simplified
   procedures with elements of a negotiated procurement, in our decision here
   we use terminology applicable to negotiated procurements (e.g., "offer"
   instead of "quotation").

   [3] The Navy states that the NECO website includes a "hot link" that, when
   clicked, displays an explanation of the "Price Quote No." box. Offerors
   were advised that filling in the box was required, using either the number
   they had assigned to their offers internally, or any other number they
   chose.

   [4] To the extent that Paraclete argues that the solicitation contained
   insufficient information to enable it to properly prepare its offer, the
   protest is untimely since it was filed after the time set for receipt of
   offers. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(c)(1) (2007).

   [5] As noted above, the contracting officer did not review the entry
   "$330,795.95" in the NECO "Price Quote No." box. To the extent Paraclete
   suggests that, had he done so, the contracting officer would have realized
   that the entry corresponded to the sum of the prices listed for each line
   item, and therefore represented Paraclete's total proposed price, this
   argument is unpersuasive. We see nothing unreasonable in the contracting
   officer's failure to review the "Price Quote No." box since, as explained
   above, it was intended to display the offeror's internal tracking number
   and had no connection to the price submission. In any event, the agency is
   not required to piece together disparate parts of a firm's proposal to
   determine its intent, rather, it is the firm's responsibility to submit an
   adequately written proposal. See Battelle Memorial Inst., supra;
   Interaction Research Inst., Inc., B-234141.7, June 30, 1989, 89-2 CPD
   para. 15 at 4-5. Moreover, even if the entry in the "Price Quote No." box
   corresponds to the total of the line item prices, it is insufficient to
   overcome the other uncertainties in Paraclete's pricing, including the
   line item notations (e.g., "Wholesale Price per Dozen").

   [6] Paraclete does not argue that NAVICP was required to conduct
   discussions. In this regard, we note that the inclusion of FAR clause
   52.212-1(g) in the solicitation put offerors on notice that discussions
   were not contemplated in this procurement, and, in any event, discussions
   are not required under simplified acquisition procedures. See FAR sect.
   13.106-2.