B-299046.2, Para Scientific Company, February 13, 2007

B-299046.2 Feb 13, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Para Scientific Company protests the award of a contract to Fisher Scientific Company LLC under request for quotations (RFQ) No. NIH-NIDDK-06-985, issued by the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, for laboratory supplies. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-299046.2, Para Scientific Company, February 13, 2007 Decision Matter of: Para Scientific Company File: B-299046.2 Date: February 13, 2007 Hiram Reinhart for the protester. Mogy E. Omatete, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a procurement conducted under simplified acquisition procedures, agency's determination that it was in the best interests of the government to make a single award to the vendor that submitted the lowest total-priced quotation for all 22 items listed in a request for quotations for laboratory supplies was unreasonable where the record demonstrates that a second award to the protester for 6 of the requested items would have resulted in a lower aggregate cost to the government and there is nothing in the record to suggest that such an award would not have been in the government's best interests. DECISION Para Scientific Company protests the award of a contract to Fisher Scientific Company LLC under request for quotations (RFQ) No. NIH-NIDDK-06-985, issued by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, for laboratory supplies. We sustain the protest. The RFQ listed 22 items and the quantity of the items that the agency sought to purchase. For example, some of the items included –Pipet Sero Disposable 25ml 200/cs— with a quantity sought of 10 cases, and –Box with cover fiber board 3 inch 12/pack— with a quantity sought of 10 packs. RFQ at 2. Next to each of the items listed and quantities sought, the RFQ included blank spaces where vendors were to insert their unit price per item and total prices based upon the stated quantities. The RFQ did not require that vendors submit prices for all items, or indicate whether a single award or multiple awards were contemplated. The agency received quotations from eight vendors, including Fisher Scientific and Para Scientific, with Fisher Scientific's quotation providing a total price of $32,159 for all items listed. Para Scientific's quotation, which did not include pricing for 2 of the 22 listed items, provided a total price for the remaining 20 items of $67,739.[1] Contracting Officer's Statement at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Para Scientific Quotation, at 3. The agency awarded a contract for the items to Fisher Scientific.[2] The protester argues, among other things, that to the extent that its quotation included prices lower than those furnished by the awardee for any of the items solicited, the agency should have awarded a contract to the protester for those lower priced items.[3] Protester's Comments at 1-2. The agency responds that –[a]lthough the RFQ package did not state that vendors were required to propose on all line items, it was in the Government[']s best interest to award to a vendor that could provide all requested items with the lowest price.— Contracting Officer's Statement at 1-2. Section 13.101(b)(1) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) expressly recognizes that either single or multiple awards are permissible in the context of simplified acquisitions, [4] and our Office has consistently held that where, as here, a solicitation does not require a single award, multiple awards may be made. See, e.g., Weather Experts, Inc., B-255103, Feb. 9, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 93 at 3 (invitation for bids (IFB)); Goodman Ball, Inc., B'217318, Mar. 25, 1985, 85-1 CPD para. 348 at 3 (IFB). Given that it was within the agency's discretion to make either a single award or multiple awards, we review for reasonableness the agency's exercise of that discretion in making a single award to Fisher Scientific. See Weather Experts, Inc., supra; American Bank Note Co., B'222589, Sept. 18, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 316 (RFP). Although the FAR recognizes that multiple awards may be made under FAR Part 13 procurements, neither the FAR nor case law provides any specific guidance as to when multiple awards are either appropriate or required in these procurements. The FAR does, however, provide guidance regarding single or multiple awards in the context of sealed bidding and negotiated acquisitions.