Multi-Spec Products Corporation, B-287135, March 30, 2001

B-287135 Mar 30, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The first page of the RFQ was Standard Form (SF) 18 (Rev. 6-95). Which was completed by the agency. If delivery period shown in Block 6 is unacceptable. The general instructions of the RFQ stated the following: NOTICE: Best Value Buying: DSCP purchases at or below the [simplified acquisition threshold] are subject to Best Value Buying techniques. Is not limited to. Multi-Spec's quotation was the only one offering a delivery period of 40 days. 067.50 was lowest. Once this adjustment was made. JAMC's evaluated price was $55. Which was still the lowest evaluated price. Multi-Spec's evaluated price was the same as its quoted price. Multi-Spec alleges that JAMC's quotation is unacceptable because its quoted delivery period exceeds the required delivery period stated in the RFQ. View Decision Matter of: Multi-Spec Products Corporation File: B-287135 Date: March 30, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Multi-Spec Products Corporation protests an award of a purchase order to Julian A. McDermott Corporation (JAMC) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO560-01-Q-6250, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), Pennsylvania, for electric lanterns. We deny the protest. The agency issued the RFQ on January 10, 2001 as a small business set-aside under the streamlined acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13. Agency Report at 2. The contemplated purchase price fell below the simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000. See FAR Sec. 2.101. The first page of the RFQ was Standard Form (SF) 18 (Rev. 6-95). Block 6 of SF 18, which was completed by the agency, stated, "Deliver within 40 days [after date of order (ADO)]." Block 11 provided items for the quoter to complete, including the following: d. If delivery period shown in Block 6 is unacceptable, provide best possible delivery: ___________. The general instructions of the RFQ stated the following: NOTICE: Best Value Buying: DSCP purchases at or below the [simplified acquisition threshold] are subject to Best Value Buying techniques. This includes, but is not limited to, . . . the Delivery Evaluation Factor Program and Contracting Officers' individual determinations based on a comparative assessment of pertinent circumstances, including . . . delivery . . . . RFQ at 5. The agency received four quotations. Agency Report at 3. Multi-Spec's quotation was the only one offering a delivery period of 40 days; the other quotes offered longer delivery periods. JAMC's quotation had the longest delivery period of 150 days. JAMC's price of $51,067.50 was lowest, followed by Multi-Spec's price of $59,400. The delivery evaluation provided for dollar values to be added to each quoter's price for each day it promises delivery beyond the requested 40-day delivery period. Once this adjustment was made, JAMC's evaluated price was $55,392.92, which was still the lowest evaluated price. Since Multi-Spec quoted the requested delivery of 40 days, Multi-Spec's evaluated price was the same as its quoted price, which remained the next lowest. The contracting officer selected JAMC's quotation for award. Agency Report at 3-4. This protest followed. Multi-Spec alleges that JAMC's quotation is unacceptable because its quoted delivery period exceeds the required delivery period stated in the RFQ. The protester alternatively alleges that the agency improperly included delivery as an evaluation factor contrary to the terms of the applicable simplified purchase agreement (SPA) previously issued by the agency, and that the evaluation of delivery beyond the 40-day period stated in the RFQ without proper notice in the RFQ created an unequal competition. Multi-Spec states that, had it known that the agency would consider delivery period beyond the 40 days stated in the RFQ, Muti-Spec could and would have quoted a price lower than JAMC's. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) requires simplified procedures for small purchases of property and services in order to promote efficiency and economy in contracting, and to avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2304(g)(1) (Supp. IV 1998); FAR Sec. 13.002. Consistent with this requirement, purchases for an amount not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold are expressly exempted from the requirement that solicitations include a statement of all significant evaluation factors and subfactors that the agency reasonably expects to consider. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2305(a)(2)(A). Nevertheless, all procurements, including those to which this exemption applies, must be conducted consistent with the concern for a fair and equitable competition that is inherent in any procurement. General Metals, Inc., B-249259 et al., Nov. 3, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 319 at 4. In this regard, an agency must evaluate quotations on the basis set forth in the RFQ.