Payne Construction, B-291629, February 4, 2003

B-291629 Feb 04, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency should have considered protester's quotation where it was received prior to agency's commencement of quotation evaluation and other vendors would not have been prejudiced. Which was issued on June 17. The agency determined that one was unrealistically low in price and that the other was from a vendor who had experienced difficulties in completing work on time. At the time the quotations were received. There is no evidence in the record that the quotations received were evaluated at any point between August 14 and October 7. Payne's was lowest. Ridgley's was next lowest. The contracting officer did not consider Payne's quotation because he believed that Payne was ineligible to participate in the competition. View Decision Payne Construction, B-291629, February 4, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Payne Construction protests the failure of the Forest Service to consider its quotation and the agency's issuance of a purchase order to Ridgley Engineering under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-17-02-120, for excavator piling site preparation in Tahoe National Forest, California. We sustain the protest. The RFQ, which was issued on June 17, 2002 using Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 13 simplified acquisition procedures, requested prices on 13 line subitems (numbered 1A-1F and 2A-2G), representing estimated acreages at 13 different work sites. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of an order to the vendor whose quotation represented the best value to the government. Factors to be considered in the determination of best value included price, experience, delivery, quality, and past performance. The RFQ invited interested firms to "[p]lease furnish quotations to the issuing office in block 5a on or before close of business July 16, 2002." Neither Ridgley nor Payne furnished a quotation by the July 16 due date. Two other vendors did provide quotations, but the agency determined that one was unrealistically low in price and that the other was from a vendor who had experienced difficulties in completing work on time. Contracting Officer's Statement Para. 2. At the time the quotations were received, funding constraints prevented the agency from issuing a purchase order; accordingly, the contracting officer determined that he would "take the opportunity to try to broaden the competition by reopening the solicitation." Id. Para. 3. On August 1, the Forest Service issued, and posted on the FedBizOpps website, amendment No. 1 to the RFQ, which extended the quotation due date to August 14. /1/ Ridgley and three other vendors submitted quotations by the new due date; Payne did not submit a quotation. There is no evidence in the record that the quotations received were evaluated at any point between August 14 and October 7. Funding constraints still prevented the agency from issuing a purchase order. The contracting officer decided that since the agency would not be able to issue a purchase order until after the start of the new fiscal year, he would issue a second amendment to the RFQ reformatting the schedule of items to request separate totals for items 1 and 2 and emphasizing that the two items might be awarded to different contractors. Id. Para. 4. On September 20, the contracting officer issued amendment No. 2, which extended the quotation due date to October 7, to the four vendors who had submitted quotations in response to amendment No. 1. /2/ Because he did not intend to reopen the competition to vendors other than those four, he did not post the amendment on the FedBizOpps website. Subsequent to the contracting officer's issuance of amendment No. 2, Payne Construction learned of the RFQ from a Forest Service Internet site. A Payne representative contacted the contracting office, which furnished Payne a copy of the solicitation. On October 7, the Payne representative visited the contracting office, where a Forest Service employee furnished it detailed information regarding the job. Later the same day, Payne hand-delivered its quotation to the contracting office. Protest at 1. The Forest Service received quotations from Payne and Ridgley and from two of the three other vendors to whom it had distributed amendment No. 2. Of the quotations received, Payne's was lowest, and Ridgley's was next lowest. The contracting officer did not consider Payne's quotation because he believed that Payne was ineligible to participate in the competition, having failed to submit a quotation prior to the due date set by amendment No. 1. Contracting Officer's Statement Para. 6. On October 11, the contracting officer issued a purchase order to Ridgley Engineering. Payne received a letter notifying it of the selection of Ridgley on October 15.