SF & Wellness

B-272313 Sep 23, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that contracting agency failed to solicit incumbent contractor under simplified acquisition procedure is denied where record shows that rather than deliberately excluding the incumbent. SF also argues that Four Star should have been eliminated from consideration. It indicated that it did not have the time to perform the contract. Four Star was determined to be responsible and reasonably priced and received the purchase order on May 29. It was not contacted by the agency and was therefore improperly excluded from the competition. Simplified acquisition procedures are excepted under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) from the general requirement that agencies obtain full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures. 10 U.S.C. View Decision Matter of: SF & Wellness File: B-272313 Date: September 23, 1996 Protest that contracting agency failed to solicit incumbent contractor under simplified acquisition procedure is denied where record shows that rather than deliberately excluding the incumbent, the agency called the incumbent in an unsuccessful attempt to solicit its quote. Attorneys DECISION SF & Wellness protests the issuance of a purchase order to Four Star Fitness under an oral request for quotations (RFQ) by the Department of the Navy for the teaching of aerobics classes during a 17-week period at the Little Creek Amphibious Base, Norfolk, Virginia. SF, the incumbent contractor, alleges that the agency improperly failed to solicit the firm. SF also argues that Four Star should have been eliminated from consideration. We deny the protest. On May 28, 1996, using simplified acquisition procedures as set forth in part 13 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the agency orally solicited six contractors from a list of recommended sources to obtain quotes to conduct certain aerobics classes commencing on July 1. The agency reports that on May 28, it called SF and left a message on the firm's answering machine concerning the requirement, but did not receive a response from SF. The agency received the following quotes: Four Star Fitness -- $6,375 Fitness Education -- $7,650 While Fitness Education submitted a quote, it indicated that it did not have the time to perform the contract. Four Star was determined to be responsible and reasonably priced and received the purchase order on May 29. SF objects that despite its incumbent status, it was not contacted by the agency and was therefore improperly excluded from the competition. Simplified acquisition procedures are excepted under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) from the general requirement that agencies obtain full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2304(a)(1)(A), (g)(1), and (g)(3) (1994). [1] These simplified procedures are designed to promote efficiency and economy in contracting and to avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. To facilitate these stated objectives, FASA only requires that agencies obtain competition to the maximum extent practicable when they utilize simplified acquisition procedures. Id.; 41 U.S.C. Sec. 427; see Omni Elevator, B-233450.2, Mar. 7, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 248. When using simplified acquisition procedures, contracting agencies are required to solicit quotations from a reasonable number of qualified sources to promote competition to the maximum extent practicable and ensure that the purchase is advantageous to the government based, as appropriate, on either price alone or price and other factors. FAR Sec. 13.106-1(a)(1) (FAC 90-29); see S.C. Servs., Inc., B-221012, Mar. 18, 1986, 86-1 CPD para. 266. Generally, for purchases under $25,000, as here, solicitation of three vendors is sufficient. FAR Sec. 13.106- 1(a)(3); Omni Elevator, supra. Under these procedures, where an agency receives a quotation from any one responsible small business concern at a responsible price, the contracting officer is to make an award to that concern. FAR Sec. 13.105(c)(3). An agency's failure to solicit an incumbent contractor is not in itself a violation of the requirement to promote competition under simplified acquisition procedures. S.C. Servs., Inc., supra. What is determinative is whether the agency made a deliberate or conscious attempt to preclude the protester from competing. Bosco Contracting, Inc., B-270366, Mar. 4, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 140. Here, the record does not support the conclusion that the Navy deliberately attempted to exclude SF. SF was listed on the available sources list, and the agency has provided an affidavit from the contract specialist indicating that on May 28 she called all six vendors listed as recommended sources, including SF. The contract specialist states that when she received no response from the protester, she left a message on its answering machine.