Brewer-Taylor Associates, B-277845, October 30, 1997

B-277845 Oct 30, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Army Corps of Engineers purchase order for instructional services, contending that the Corps' price analysis was flawed. GAO held that the Corps: (1) properly adjusted the awardee's price to account for the elimination of certain contract requirements; and (2) reasonably determined that the protester's price could not be adjusted for the same requirements because it lacked the same experience with teaching the required course as the awardee. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: Brewer-Taylor Associates File: B-277845 Date: October 30, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Brewer-Taylor Associates (BTA) protests the issuance of a purchase order to MSC Associates, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DACW87-97- Q-0036, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for instructional services. BTA contends that the agency's price analysis was flawed. We deny the protest. The RFQ was issued on January 31, 1997, under simplified acquisition procedures to obtain instructional services for a 5-day course entitled "DPW Support Services Contract Administration." The statement of work (SOW) provided that the contractor must use the government-furnished schedule of instruction, lesson plans, course manual/materials, and tests. The SOW identified minimum experience requirements for the lead and assistant instructors. The RFQ provided for the contractor to attend a 1- day post-award meeting to discuss in detail the expected services/supplies and to conduct a 1-day dry run of a condensed version of the classroom instruction, but also stated that the "government has the option to delete [each of these] meeting[s]." In response to the RFQ, firms were required to submit a total price quote and a "cost breakdown." The RFQ did not provide any specific format for the breakdown. The RFQ also did not provide any technical evaluation criteria. The agency explains that it selected the respondent which met the SOW qualifications at the lowest quoted price. The RFQ sought the submission of quotes by February 21. MSC submitted its quote of $7,200, without a breakdown, on February 11. BTA submitted its quote of $7,250, with a breakdown, on February 18. At the agency's request, MSC submitted its breakdown on March 4. The agency found both quotes technically acceptable and determined to issue a purchase order to MSC since it submitted the lowest quotation. Subsequently, the agency determined that, based on MSC's prior experience in teaching the course, the agency would delete the requirements for the post-award meeting and dry run (the remaining services are referred to hereinafter as the "reduced requirement"). Since MSC's cost breakdown priced the two meetings at $200, the purchase order amendment reduced the price to $7,000. Upon learning of the purchase order, BTA requested a debriefing. At the debriefing, BTA learned of the amendment to the purchase order. [1] BTA then filed an agency-level protest challenging the agency's price analysis. In that protest, BTA requested that it be issued the purchase order at $7,250 for the full requirement, or $5,750 for the reduced requirement. MSC performed the contract in July 1997. In August, the agency dismissed the protest and BTA filed this protest with our Office. BTA first protests the agency's decision to allow MSC to submit its cost breakdown after the closing date for this RFQ. This procurement was conducted under the simplified acquisition procedures set forth in part 13 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Unlike a sealed bid or a proposal, a quotation is not a legally binding offer which can be accepted by the government to form a contract. ACCESS for the Handicapped, 68 Comp.Gen. 432, 434 (1989), 89-1 CPD Para. 458 at 3. A contract comes into being solely upon the supplier's acceptance of a government order for supplies or services in response to the supplier's quotation, and the government may withdraw its order anytime prior to acceptance. FAR Sec. 13.108(a), (c). Therefore, the language of an RFQ is not generally construed as establishing a firm closing date, absent a late quotation provision (not present here), expressly providing that quotations must be received by that date in order to be considered. ACCESS for the Handicapped, supra, at 3-4. Here, inasmuch as at the time the agency requested the cost breakdown, no award had been made and no substantial activity had transpired in the evaluation, the agency's actions were consistent with the competitive rules that may be used in procurements conducted under simplified acquisition procedures. A & B Trash Serv., B-250322, Jan. 22, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 53 at 2. Absent any evidence of an improper public disclosure of the protester's price, the protester was not prejudiced by the agency's action. Id. at 3.