Input Solutions, Inc., B-294123, August 31, 2004

B-294123 Aug 31, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Input Solutions, Inc. (ISI) protests the issuance of a delivery order to Progressive Technology Federal Systems, Inc. (PTFS) under request for quotations (RFQ) No.LC04-Q-1984, issued by the Library of Congress for scanning and conversion of microfilm document images to digitized images in portable document format (PDF) files. ISI, the incumbent contractor for these services, contends that it was misled by certain statements made by the contracting officer (CO) about the performance requirements. ISI contends that the challenged agency communication created a latent ambiguity in the work requirements and that, as a result, the quotations received were based on different understandings of the scope of work. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294123, Input Solutions, Inc., August 31, 2004 Decision Matter of: Input Solutions, Inc. File: B-294123 Date: August 31, 2004 Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq. and Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for the protester. Todd Glass for Progressive Technology Federal Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Emily Vartanian, Esq., Library of Congress, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protesters contention that certain statements made by the contracting officer in an e-mail message created a latent ambiguity in a solicitations performance requirements is denied where protesters interpretation of the communication was unreasonable and, as a result, no latent ambiguity was created. Moreover, if we accepted the protesters interpretation of the communication, the ambiguity would be patent, not latent, and its protest, at this juncture, would be untimely. DECISION Input Solutions, Inc. (ISI) protests the issuance of a delivery order to Progressive Technology Federal Systems, Inc. (PTFS) under request for quotations (RFQ) No.LC04-Q-1984, issued by the Library of Congress for scanning and conversion of microfilm document images to digitized images in portable document format (PDF) files. ISI, the incumbent contractor for these services, contends that it was misled by certain statements made by the contracting officer (CO) about the performance requirements. ISI contends that the challenged agency communication created a latent ambiguity in the work requirements and that, as a result, the quotations received were based on different understandings of the scope of work. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued on April 28, 2004, provided limited general performance specifications for scanning/conversion services, and sought quotes from General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contractors. The RFQ anticipated, for instance, scanning/conversion of up to 111,875 standard image pages per 7 business days, with fewer images expected for nonstandard, low quality film images. RFQ at 2. Vendors were to determine their own performance methods and no technical information was requested by the RFQ. In addition to identifying their FSS contracts for the services, vendors were to provide three prices for evaluation: a price per page for standard quality images; a tier 1 low quality film surcharge (to be added to its standard quality image page price) for the conversion of poor quality images; and a tier 2 low quality film charge expressed as an hourly rate. The RFQ provided for a performance period of slightly more than 1 year and contemplated selection of the lowest priced vendor. Id. On May 5, ISI contacted the CO by e-mail asking for a description of the requirements to perform conversion to standard quality image [and tier 2 low quality image] deliverables, noting that [p]ricing is requested . . . but no description is given. E-mail from ISI to CO, May 5, 2004. The CO responded that [t]he nature of the work related to this RFQ is the same that your company has been doing for the past few years. E-mail from CO to ISI, May 5, 2004. The CO, recognizing that ISIs familiarity with the images and prior conversion work should enable the firm to understand the nature of the work solicited, stated in his email message that image deliverables should be based on how you previously provided clear, readable images for the Library for the past few years, and that [a]s the company that has been performing the work for the past few years I expect you to have intimate knowledge about the nature of the work, the quality of the material, and the true cost of performing the service to our satisfaction. Id. Two quotations, ISIs and PTFSs, were received by the agency. After finding that both firms were experienced FSS contractors for the scanning/conversion services, the agency selected PTFS on the basis of its substantially lower price.