Cromartie Construction Company

B-271788 Jul 30, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested the Navy's rejection of its bid for new locks and keys, contending that the Navy unreasonably issued a purchase order to another firm at a substantially higher price. GAO held that the Navy: (1) improperly rejected the protester's low responsive bid and issued the purchase order to a large firm that took exception to the solicitation requirements; and (2) should have referred its concerns regarding the protester's responsibility to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Navy: (1) cancel the purchase order and refer the matter to SBA for a conclusive certificate of competency determination; and (2) reimburse the protester for its protest costs. View Decision Matter of: Cromartie Construction Company File: B-271788 Date: July 30, 1996 Where RFQ sought fixed-price quotations and identified only price as an evaluation factor, procuring agency improperly rejected responsive, low quotation in favor of a higher quotation. In procurement set aside for small emerging businesses, record does not reasonably support agency's determination to issue purchase order to a large business at a substantial price premium on the basis of purported urgent need for contract performance. Agency's concern that small business' quotation was unreasonably low involves the quoter's responsibility, the negative determination of which must be referred to the Small Business Administration. Attorneys DECISION Cromartie Construction Company (CCC) protests the Department of the Navy's rejection of its low quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N68925-96-Q-A303 to provide and install new locks and keys for a particular building at the Washington Navy Yard. CCC asserts that the Navy acted unreasonably in issuing a purchase order to another company at a price substantially higher than CCC's quotation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On March 22, 1996, the Navy Public Works Center issued the subject RFQ under the simplified acquisition procedures set forth in part 13 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The solicitation was set aside for "emerging small businesses" and sought fixed-price quotations to provide new locks and keys for Building No. 183 at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. [1] The solicitation did not require the submission of technical proposals and did not identify any evaluation factors other than price. [2] The RFQ required "work to be completed within 14 calendar days." After issuing the solicitation, the Navy's purchasing agent contacted various firms and posted the RFQ on the Navy Public Works Center bulletin board. CCC submitted a quotation of $3,795 prior to the March 25 deadline; the government's estimate for this procurement was $7,500. CCC's quotation stated that the company was located in Washington, D.C., but listed a Pennsylvania telephone number. [3] On March 26, Cromartie telephoned the Navy Public Works Center to inquire about the procurement, asking to speak with the purchasing agent identified in the RFQ. The purchasing agent declined to speak with Cromartie and directed another Navy employee to advise Cromartie that the Navy was considering cancellation of the solicitation. [4] The Navy asserts that, beginning on March 29, Navy personnel attempted to contact Cromartie by telephone, but were unable to get an answer at the number provided until April 4. [5] On April 4, Cromartie's mother answered a call placed by the Navy and told the Navy representative that Cromartie would call back. On April 5, the Navy awarded a purchase order to Best Locking Systems of Maryland, a large business, in the amount of $6,894. [6] Cromartie returned the Navy's call on Monday, April 8. At that time, the agency advised him that, due to the agency's pressing need to have the new locks installed, a purchase order had been issued. This protest followed. DISCUSSION The Navy first argues that CCC has no basis to challenge the Navy's issuance of a purchase order because the procurement was conducted under simplified acquisition procedures, pursuant to an RFQ, under which CCC has no entitlement to award. See L C Jones Elec., B-249491, Nov. 23, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 367. In this regard, the purchasing agent asserts that, because the Navy issued an RFQ rather than an invitation for bids (IFB), the Navy "had no obligation to utilize the quote [CCC] provided." Where an agency proceeds with a small business set-aside using simplified acquisition procedures and receives a quotation from only one responsible small business concern at a reasonable price, FAR Sec. 13.105(c)(3) requires that the contracting officer make an award to that concern.