Military Agency Services Pty., Ltd.

Military Agency Services Pty., Ltd. TITLE: Military Agency Services Pty., Ltd. BNUMBER: B-290414; B-290441; B-290468; B-290496, DATE: August 1, 2002 ********************************************************************** Military Agency Services Pty., Ltd., B-290414; B-290441; B-290468; B-290496, August 1, 2002 Decision Matter of: Military Agency Services Pty., Ltd. File: B-290414; B-290441; B-290468; B-290496 Date: August 1, 2002 Chris Mangan for the protester. Lis B. Young, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. General Accounting Office (GAO) will not consider protests that awards under solicitations for services breach the protester's requirements contract because this is a contract administration matter and therefore outside GAO's bid protest jurisdiction. 2. Protest of solicitation requirement as unduly restrictive is denied, where the requirement relates to safety and reliability, and the protester has not shown the requirement is unreasonable or unachievable. 3. Agency's request for near-immediate responses to requests for quotations for picket boat services conducted under simplified acquisition procedures is unobjectionable, where the requirements were needed shortly after when responses were due, the contracting office was only requisitioned to obtain the requirements shortly before requesting quotes, only prices were solicited, and all requested sources timely submitted quotes. 4. Defense agency was not required to comply with the public notice requirements contained in Federal Acquisition Regulation part 5 where the acquisitions were for services performed outside the United States and only local sources were solicited. 5. Where no evaluation factors are specified in a request for quotations, which only requests prices, price is the sole evaluation factor. 6. Even assuming agency improperly failed to solicit the protester under a request for quotations (RFQ) issued under simplified acquisition procedures for picket boat services, the protester was not prejudiced where under the particular circumstances there was no suggestion that it would have been successful under the RFQ. DECISION Military Agency Services Pty. Ltd. (MAS) protests the award of four separate orders by the Naval Regional Contracting Center Singapore (NRCCSG) to Parsh Marine Company under blanket purchase agreement (BPA) No. N68047-95-A-0019, for picket boat services in the Singapore harbor to protect the United States Naval Ship (USNS) Niagara Falls, the United States Ship (USS) Cushing, the USNS Pecos, and the USNS John Ericsson.[1] We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part. To acquire the picket boat services, NRCCSG issued four requests for quotations (RFQ) between April 19 and 29, 2002, under the simplified acquisition procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13. Each RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price order on a per-day basis for a specified ship. Previously, on December 13, 2001, NRCCSG awarded MAS an indefinite-delivery, requirements contract No. N68047-02-D0022, for ship husbanding services, which included provisions for picket boat services. Parsh has been performing a variety of services, including picket boat services, for the Navy through orders placed under the BPA, which was executed in 1995. The first RFQ, for picket boat services for the USNS Niagara Falls, was issued on Friday, April 19. Three vendors, including MAS, responded with quotes before closing on Monday morning, April 22. At approximately the same time (and before closing), MAS also submitted a protest to NRCCSG, alleging that the solicitation breached its requirements contract and that the picket boat requirements in the RFQ exceeded the government's legitimate needs. MAS's quoted price was 1,300 Singapore dollars (S$) per day, the same price as in its requirements contract.[2] On that same date, the agency awarded an order for the 3 days of services to Parsh, which had submitted the low quote of S$1,000 per day. Performance began later that day. MAS protested the RFQ and the award to our Office on May 1. With regard to the second RFQ, for picket boat services for the USS Cushing from April 25 until May 15, the contracting officer called three vendors, including MAS and Parsh, between 4:00 and 4:10 p.m. on April 24, and requested that oral quotes be submitted by 4:35 p.m. MAS again offered the picket boat services at its requirements contract price, S$1,300 per boat per day, while Parsh submitted the low quote of S$1,000 per boat per day. Award for two boats was made that same day to Parsh.