Bluehorse Corporation

B-414809 Aug 18, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bluehorse Corporation, an Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise of Reno, Nevada, protests the rejection of its quotation by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. A17PS00709, issued by the agency to acquire clear diesel fuel delivery for a highway construction project near Polacca, Arizona. The protester asserts that the agency improperly rejected its quotation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Bluehorse Corporation File:  B-414809 Date:  August 18, 2017 Akenaten Bluehorse for the protester. Brian A. Quint, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's rejection of quotation as unacceptable is denied where the protester conditioned its quotation in a manner that fails to conform to the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Bluehorse Corporation, an Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise of Reno, Nevada, protests the rejection of its quotation by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. A17PS00709, issued by the agency to acquire clear diesel fuel delivery for a highway construction project near Polacca, Arizona.  The protester asserts that the agency improperly rejected its quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 27, 2017, the agency posted the combined synopsis/solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOps) website using the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subparts 12.6 and 13.5.  RFQ at 1; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1.  The RFQ, which was set aside for Indian Small Business Economic Enterprises pursuant to the Buy Indian Act, 25 U.S.C. § 47, contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price order for the purchase and delivery of approximately 30,000 gallons of clear diesel fuel for a highway construction project near Polacca, Arizona.  RFQ at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3a, Acquisition Plan, at 2.  Of relevance to the protest, the solicitation's delivery and quantity terms provided: All fuel delivery must be coordinated with the construction manager who will schedule delivery dates and quantities.  Please note:  that all fuel will not be delivered at one time but in stages as the project progresses. RFQ at 2.  The solicitation further provided that the agency intended to make a single award "at a fair and reasonable price to the lowest responsive and responsible [vendor] whose quote[,] conforming to the requirements herein[,] will be the most advantageous to the Government."  RFQ at 3. The RFQ was amended three times.  Relevant here, the solicitation was amended for the third time on May 31 to provide responses to vendor questions.  Among other things, the agency informed vendors that fuel deliveries would be made to "two five thousand gallon tanks" and that the agency "typically" orders 4,000 gallons of fuel per delivery.  RFQ, Amend. 0003, at 1.  The agency also explained that, because construction was in "full swing," the agency had been placing orders for fuel "approximately every three or four weeks."  Id.  The agency also reaffirmed that "[t]he maximum amount of fuel estimated is 30,000 gallons."[1]  Id. at 2. In response to the solicitation, the agency received three quotations, including one from Bluehorse.  Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 3; AR, Tab 6, Bluehorse Quotation, at 1; MOL at 2.  Bluehorse submitted the lowest-priced quotation.  MOL at 2.  In its quotation, Bluehorse indicated that it had the ability to supply 7,500 gallons of fuel per delivery.  AR, Tab 6, Bluehorse Quotation, at 1 ("Offeror can fill one tank and half fill the other [tank] each Drop--7500 gallons.").  The contracting officer initially intended to make an award to Bluehorse and, on June 13, forwarded a purchase order to Bluehorse for signature.  AR, Tab 7a, Documentation of Price Reasonableness, at 1; COS at 4; MOL at 2.  As a result of subsequent communications with Bluehorse, however, the contracting officer concluded that Bluehorse's quotation failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation.  COS at 5-6.  Accordingly, the contracting officer rescinded the purchase order.  COS at 6; AR, Tab 9d, Email Correspondence, June 13, 2017, at 14.[2] We summarize below the relevant portions of the correspondence between the contracting officer and Bluehorse.[3]  All communications occurred on June 13. The record reflects that, on June 13, the contracting officer forwarded the purchase order to Bluehorse for signature.  AR, Tab 9a, Email Correspondence, at 17.  The purchase order contained two provisions relevant to the protest.  First, the purchase order erroneously listed the capacit...