Cutter Lumber Products

B-262223.2 Feb 09, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside on January 17. Was distributed to 62 prospective small business contractors. Although Cutter was the incumbent for providing the required pallets to the Tracy. California site was scheduled to expire on September 23. The contract specialist advised Cutter that she was unaware of the status for the follow-on procurement. That the cognizant contract specialist who supervised this requirement was on vacation. Which was denied. This is accomplished only where (1) all qualified vendors are allowed and encouraged to submit offers on federal procurements. (2) a sufficient number of offers is received to ensure that the government's requirements are filled at the lowest possible cost. 10 U.S.C. View Decision Matter of: Cutter Lumber Products File: B-262223.2 Date: February 9, 1996 Agency's inadvertent failure to solicit incumbent contractor does not warrant sustaining incumbent's subsequent protest where agency otherwise obtained full and open competition. Attorneys DECISION Cutter Lumber Products protests the award of a contract to Precision Wood Products, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO440-95-R-0655, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to supply wooden pallets to nine DLA destinations located in the states of California, Utah, Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Cutter contends that DLA's failure to provide it with a copy of the solicitation improperly denied it the opportunity to compete for the Tracy, California pallet requirement, one of nine contract line item numbers (CLIN) set forth in the RFP. [1] We deny the protest. The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside on January 17, 1995, and was distributed to 62 prospective small business contractors. Although Cutter was the incumbent for providing the required pallets to the Tracy, California destination site--CLIN 0005 of the RFP--the contract specialist who prepared the solicitation distribution list admits that because of administrative error, he failed to provide Cutter with a copy of the follow-on procurement. Cutter's incumbent contract for the Tracy, California site was scheduled to expire on September 23, 1995. On August 16, the record shows that Cutter telephoned the DLA contracting office and asked when the follow-on pallet requirement for the Tracy, California site would be solicited. The contract specialist advised Cutter that she was unaware of the status for the follow-on procurement, and that the cognizant contract specialist who supervised this requirement was on vacation. On August 21, Cutter contacted the designated contract specialist and learned for the first time that a follow-on contract for the Tracy, California pallet requirement already had been solicited, and a contract awarded on 1995. That same day, Cutter filed an agency-level protest challenging DLA's failure to provide it with the follow-on RFP, which was denied; on September 22, Cutter filed this protest. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 requires contracting agencies to obtain full and open competition, and this is accomplished only where (1) all qualified vendors are allowed and encouraged to submit offers on federal procurements; and (2) a sufficient number of offers is received to ensure that the government's requirements are filled at the lowest possible cost. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2304(a)(1)(A) (1994); 41 U.S.C. Sec. 403(6) (1994); H.R. Rep. No. 1157, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. 17 (1984). We have concluded, therefore, that failure to solicit a successfully-performing incumbent, with the result that an identified responsible source is prevented from competing where there is only a minimal level of competition, results in a failure to obtain full and open competition. Professional Ambulance, Inc., B-248474, Sept. 1, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 145. Support for our view is found in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which provides that solicitation mailing lists are to be maintained by contracting activities, that lists are to include those considered capable of filling agency requirements, and that solicitations normally are to be sent to those on the lists. FAR Secs. 14.203-1, 14.205-1, and 15.403. The FAR also provides that where--as here--agencies rotate names on an excessively lengthy mailing list, the agency should continue to include the "previously successful bidder." FAR Sec. 14.205-4(b). In this case, by affidavit, the cognizant contract specialist states that he inadvertently overlooked Cutter's cage code classification, which would have alerted him to the protester's incumbent status and eligibility to compete for the successor requirement. DLA contends that the contract specialist's dissemination error does not warrant sustaining Cutter's protest since despite the agency's failure to solicit the incumbent, full and open competition was obtained.