We first note that the agency has not stated or otherwise explained in any manner why the "process of coordinating with other provinces" was so "cumbersome," or why that would relieve it of any of its statutory and regulatory obligations regarding the proper posting of procurement actions. In this regard, we note that during a telephone hearing, the basic process of coordinating with the IBET and Northern Province contracting offices was described as nothing more than sending them the pre-solicitation notice and RFQ, and requesting that they be posted on the provinces’ respective websites. Additionally, although the agency is correct that the pre-solicitation notice and RFQ could have been accessed by searching the FedBizOpps site using the correct NAICS code, we note that this code includes many divergent services and postings nationwide; indeed, during the course of a telephone hearing with the parties, such a search was conducted and it yielded well over 900 different postings. Given the circumstances here, it would be quite burdensome for a contractor to have to regularly search such a large database in order for the contractor to be assured that it remained aware of potential contracting opportunities. Nevertheless, under the circumstances here, we do not agree with the protester that the agency’s posting of its requirements on only the Sierra Cascade Province’s FedBizOpps website failed to meet the statutory requirement that the notice be "electronically accessible in a form that allows convenient and universal user access." See 41 U.S.C. sect. 416 (a)(7) (2000). We have long held that prospective vendors have an affirmative duty to make every reasonable effort to obtain solicitation materials. USA Info. Sys., Inc., B-291488, Dec. 2, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 205 at 3; American Material Handling, Inc., B-281261, Jan. 19, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 13 at 2; see Upside Down Prods., B-243308, July 17, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 66 at 3. As noted above, each particular contracting opportunity set forth in the RFQ could have been readily located on the FedBizOpps website by searching by geographic location. That is, the contracting opportunity that the protester is interested in, the provision of wildland fire engine services for the Tahoe National Forest in the IBET Province, could have been readily located by searching the FedBizOpps website for contracting opportunities in that forest--that is, by searching the FedBizOpps website using the term “Tahoe.” See Protest at 2. Had the protester done this, the protester would have found both the pre-solicitation notice and RFQ. Given this, we conclude that the agency’s actions satisfied the legal requirements.  (Jess Bruner Fire Suppression, B-296533, August 19, 2005) (pdf)

The record here also discloses that the agency’s sole-source determination may not be reasonable. We first note in this regard that the agency has never synopsized its intent to make a sole-source award to Metaworks. Although the agency points out that it received no responses (other than the protester’s) to the December 15 pre‑solicitation notice, the agency also acknowledges that the pre-solicitation notice was misclassified as “medical services,” rather than as “other scientific and technical consulting services.” AR, Tab 1, Statement of Facts, at 4. The document that the agency terms a “revised notice” was, in actuality, an RFQ apparently issued only to IVI. Given these flaws, the agency’s actions may have denied potential sources (other than the protester) the opportunity to respond to a proper synopsis of the agency’s intended sole-source. In addition, in its justification of its sole source determination, the agency describes Metaworks’ skills and experience, and states that Metaworks is “the leading provider” of these services. AR, Tab 2, at 10 (Sole Source Justification). This description, on its face, suggests that there are other providers of these services, and that the agency is aware of them. Finally, we note that the protester claims that it, too, can provide these services. Protester’s Comments at 5. In short, there is little here to support the determination that only Metaworks could provide these services. See Ultraviolet Purification Sys., Inc., supra, at 4; Jack Faucett Assocs., Inc., supra, at 4. (Information Ventures, Inc., B-293541, April 9, 2004) (pdf)

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that this synopsis did not accurately describe the agency’s requirements.  As set forth above, the notice, while not entirely clear, indicates a need for a contractor to “plan and convene a conference” (described later in the notice as involving over 4,000 participants), and to provide training for conference participants on the Get Connected Toolkit.[2]   However, the requisition, including the scope of work, dated November 20, 2003, which presumably served as the basis for the notice, provides a markedly different description of the work here.  Specifically, the requisition shows that the agency actually wanted a contractor to provide a geriatrics specialist and a conference coordinator to prepare a one-day training course in using the Get Connected Toolkit.  This training course was to be offered during the course of the American Society of Aging (ASA)/NCOA conference on April 14, 2004, and the agency anticipated providing training to up to 60 individuals.  See AR, Tab D, Statement of Work at 2-10.  In our view, the agency’s actual requirements are significantly different than “planning and convening a conference” for 4,000 people, as the notice advised. In light of the misleading notice used here, Information Ventures, as well as other potential contractors, was denied any realistic opportunity to compete for the agency’s requirements.  In this regard, Information Ventures advises that it has extensive experience in planning conferences for HHS in the subject areas relevant to the procurement, including graphics and design expertise; that it, too, has the ability to identify experts and consultants; and that it would have competed for the contract had the agency accurately described its needs.  Without providing an accurate notice of its sole-source procurement, HHS failed to ensure that its actions provided competition to the maximum extent practicable, as required by FAR § 13.104 for simplified acquisitions.  See id. at 6. (Information Ventures, Inc., B-293518; B-293518.2, March 29, 2004) (pdf)

Generally, agencies are required to provide public notice of proposed contract actions for amounts above $25,000 in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) and to give potential sources a reasonable opportunity to respond. 41 U.S.C.A. sec. 416(a) (West Supp. 1998); FAR sec. 5.101, 5.203(b). This requirement extends to proposed sole-source awards using simplified acquisition procedures (i.e., for amounts between $25,000 and $100,000). FAR sec. 13.003(i)(2), 13.105(a). Although certain contract actions using FACNET are exempt from the CBD notice and response time requirements, see 41 U.S.C.A. sec. 416(c)(1)(A) and (B); FAR sec. 5.202(a)(13) and (14), 13.105(a)(1), this does not mean that public notice and an opportunity to respond are not required where FACNET is used; instead, it means that when an acquisition is conducted via FACNET, public notice may be furnished via FACNET rather than via the CBD.  (Jack Faucett Associates, Inc., B-279347, June 3, 1998)