Cromartie and Breakfield, B-279859, July 27, 1998

B-279859 Jul 27, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably rejected low quote due to suspected mistake where quote was significantly lower than the government estimate and the other quotes received and. Of which Cromartie's was low at $7. The government estimate for the work was $23. Cromartie was also requested to submit a price breakdown and to provide three references for tree removal work. Documentation showing that it was qualified to perform this type of work. Cromartie declined to provide a price breakdown stating that the scope of work was not specific. There were no "quantitative measurements verbally or graphic illustrations" and therefore it was impossible to give a price breakdown. Stated that "[w]e will be using chain saws. View Decision Matter of: Cromartie and Breakfield File: B-279859 Date: July 27, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Cromartie and Breakfield protests the rejection of its low quote under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N68925-98-Q-A171, issued by the Department of the Navy, for woodland debris removal at the United States Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued as a small business set-aside under simplified acquisition procedures, requested a lump-sum price to provide all necessary labor, material, equipment and supervision for ground maintenance services described as the removal of all dead wood, limbs, branches, trees, and vegetation throughout a 98,970 square foot area. The RFQ specified the removal of dead wood overhanging or hanging onto trees or vegetation and all vines to an elevation of 8 feet. RFQ, Woodland Debris Removal Specification Para. 2. The Navy received five quotations on March 31, 1998, of which Cromartie's was low at $7,673, with the other quotes ranging from $23,500 to $45,000. The government estimate for the work was $23,973.50. By letter dated April 1, the contracting officer informed Cromartie that its quote appeared to be unreasonably low and out of line with the government estimate and asked Cromartie to review its worksheets for possible errors or omissions. Cromartie was also requested to submit a price breakdown and to provide three references for tree removal work, documentation showing that it was qualified to perform this type of work, and a project plan showing how it intended to complete the work. By letter dated April 3, Cromartie declined to provide a price breakdown stating that the scope of work was not specific; there were no "quantitative measurements verbally or graphic illustrations" and therefore it was impossible to give a price breakdown. Cromartie provided a list of references and, as its project plan, stated that "[w]e will be using chain saws, ladders, harness belts, complete clothing, ropes and roll aways to cut down, clean up and remove debris." By letter dated April 8, the Navy rejected Cromartie's quote as unreasonable as to price. A purchase order was issued to the second low quoter, The Davey Tree Expert Company, for $23,500. The protester essentially argues that the rejection of its quote as unreasonably low actually constituted a nonresponsibility determination that should have been referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for consideration under its certificate of competency (COC) procedures. In its report submitted in response to the protest, the agency explains that it rejected Cromartie's quote on the basis of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.407-3(g)(5), which allows the rejection of a bid that is obviously erroneous, such that acceptance of the bid would be unfair to the bidder or other bona fide bidders. The agency maintains that due to the extreme disparity between Cromartie's price and the prices of other quoters and the government estimate, together with Cromartie's refusal to provide an adequate price breakdown, acceptance of Cromartie's quote would be unfair even though Cromartie had not claimed to have made any mistake. Where, as here, simplified acquisition procedures are used, contracting agencies may properly use innovative approaches so as to award contracts in the manner that is most suitable, efficient and economical in the circumstances of each acquisition. FAR Sec. 13.003(h); Bosco Contracting, Inc., B-270366, Mar. 4, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 140 at 2. Our Office reviews allegations of improper agency actions in conducting simplified acquisitions to ensure that the procurements are conducted consistent with the concern for fair and equitable competition that is inherent in any federal procurement. Huntington Valley Indus., B-272321, Sept. 27, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 126 at 2. While the provisions of FAR part 14 are not directly applicable to a procurement under simplified acquisition procedures, FAR part 13 affords contracting officers discretion to use those provisions. Specifically, FAR Sec.