Warden Associates, Inc., B-291440; B-291440.2, December 27, 2002

Warden Associates, Inc., B-291440; B-291440.2, December 27, 2002 TITLE: Warden Associates, Inc., B-291440; B-291440.2, December 27, 2002 BNUMBER: B-291440; B-291440.2 DATE: December 27, 2002 ********************************************************************** Warden Associates, Inc., B-291440; B-291440.2, December 27, 2002 Decision Matter of: Warden Associates, Inc. File: B-291440; B-291440.2 Date: December 27, 2002 Harlan Wax for the protester. Kenneth W. Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency established unreasonably short deadline to respond to request for quotations issued under the Federal Supply Schedule program is denied, where protester essentially admits it could have timely responded but chose not to. DECISION Warden Associates, Inc. protests the issuance of a task order by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under request for quotations (RFQ) SBAHQ-02-Q-0043 for consulting services related to performing cost comparisons under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. Warden contends that the RFQ, which sought *a technical and price proposal* under Warden's General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, did not permit sufficient time for response. Warden also challenges the selection of the only vendor that submitted a response, Jefferson Consulting Group. We deny the protest. The record includes an SBA requisition, dated July 18, 2002, for a consultant to assist the agency in the conduct of A-76 cost comparison studies. The SBA's estimate of the cost of services was approximately $175,000. AR Tab C, Requisition for Services. However, funding did not become available, and the requisition therefore was not approved, until approximately 6 p.m. on Friday, September 27. At 9:15 p.m. that day, the contracting officer faxed the RFQ to four FSS vendors, including Warden, and left telephone messages with each vendor as well. Warden claims it never received the telephone message. The RFQ sought a *technical and price proposal in accordance with your GSA schedule contract* for A-76 consulting services. These services included providing the SBA with an implementation strategy, expert advice, and training for conducting A‑76 studies. Submissions were due by Monday, September 30, at 1 p.m. On Monday morning, September 30, Warden contacted the contracting officer and sought an extension of time for filing its response to the RFQ or, in the alternative, permission to submit its response by e-mail. Its requests were denied. The contracting officer explained that the SBA needed to place the order that day, which was the last day of the fiscal year, or else funding would expire. She explained that the SBA was having difficulties with its e-mail server, and would therefore not accept e-mail submissions, but told Warden that it could submit its response by facsimile. As explained below, Warden found this to be unacceptable. Only one vendor, Jefferson, submitted a response to the RFQ. Jefferson currently performs related A-76 consulting services for the SBA under a separate task order. Jefferson's response to the RFQ, which was timely received by the SBA at 12:50 p.m. on September 30, included a detailed technical proposal and a quotation to perform the work for approximately the same amount as the agency estimate. The SBA placed an order for the services with Jefferson on a time and materials basis, as contemplated by the RFQ. Warden timely protested that the SBA had not allowed sufficient response time to respond to the RFQ. In a supplemental protest, it also challenged the SBA's issuance of the task order to Jefferson. Warden first contends that the SBA's establishment of a 3-day response time violates Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S: 5.203 (requiring a minimum 30-day response time) and 41 U.S.C. S: 5 (requiring agencies to advertise for proposals). However, these rules apply to traditional negotiated procurements and not to the FSS program, which is governed instead by FAR Subpart 8.4.[1] Computer Prods., Inc., B-284702, May 24, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 95 at 4. Nevertheless, where, as here, an agency invites firms to submit a *technical and cost proposal* in response to an RFQ, we will review the agency's actions to ensure that the evaluation is fair and reasonable and consistent with the terms of the RFQ. Comark Fed. Sys., B-278343, B-278343.2, Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD P: 34 at 4-5. FAR Subpart 8.4 does not require that vendors be permitted a specific minimum amount of time to respond to an RFQ; what is reasonable and sufficient depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.