Frontier argues that its quote was reasonable and that the CO failed to properly evaluate its quoted price in accordance with the terms of the RFQ. Frontier also argues that the IGE was flawed and should not be used as a basis to determine price reasonableness. The protester further argues that since it was the only HUBZone small business vendor to submit a quote, the CO could not evaluate its price by comparing it to the prices quoted by other small business concerns.

As noted above, the procurement was conducted under simplified acquisition procedures. Simplified acquisition procedures are designed to, among other things, reduce administrative expenses, promote efficiency and economy in contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 13.002. These procedures provide discretion to COs to use one or more of the evaluation procedures in FAR Parts 14 and 15. See FAR sect. 13.106-2(b); Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, Oct. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 167 at 8-10. When using these procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition and must evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. In reviewing protests of an allegedly improper simplified acquisition evaluation, we examine the record to determine whether the agency met this standard and exercised its discretion reasonably. Russell Enters. of N. Carolina, Inc., B-292320, July 17, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 134 at 3.

The primary issue here is Frontier’s claim that the CO improperly used an “unreasonable price” determination to reject the quote of a HUBZone business concern. As stated above, the RFQ specifically provided that a BPA would be issued to those vendors who submitted a technically acceptable quote at a reasonable price. RFP para. E.2. The RFQ further stated that price would be evaluated in accordance with the FAR. Id. Under simplified acquisition procedures price reasonableness is determined by the CO. FAR sect. 13.106-3(a). The CO may make a reasonableness determination based on a comparison to an IGE. FAR sect. 13.106-3(a)(2)(vi). Here, the CO, in accordance with the FAR, based her price reasonableness decision on an IGE that was prepared using market research. Frontier’s quote was significantly higher than the IGE and was therefore determined to be unreasonably priced. We do not find this determination to be unreasonable.

The protester also argues that the IGE used here was developed after an inadequate evaluation of the market for the required equipment. In calculating the IGE, the agency reports that it contacted companies in Montana, Idaho and Washington who offered mobile refrigerated units for rent and the prices from these firms ranged from $125 through $175 with variations in pricing schemes depending on length of rental. AR, Tab 2, CO Statement at 6. The agency also did an internet search to establish a price range for similar units meeting OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) requirements. Finally, the IGE was established by adding a premium amount to an average of the market prices to take into consideration the excessive wear and tear the equipment would experience. Id.

On this record, we have no basis to conclude that the IGE was not reasonably based or that the market research was inadequate. If anything, the adequacy of the agency’s market research was vindicated by the quotes it received from numerous other small business concerns. Frontier’s argument that the IGE was based on an inadequate evaluation of the market reflects mere disagreement with the agency’s assessment and provides no basis for our Office to sustain a protest.  (Frontier Transportation, Inc., B-400345, September 9, 2008) (pdf)
 

In reviewing a protest against an agency’s evaluation of quotations, we examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. American Artisan Prods., Inc., B-286239, Nov. 29, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 198 at 2. Here, we think that the agency reasonably rejected the quotation as unacceptable based on the protester’s failure to furnish an image demonstrating that the thumbdrive that it was offering contained an external write-protect switch. The RFQ required vendors to submit an image of the write-protect switch, presumably, as noted, to demonstrate the switch’s compliance with the requirement that it extend above the body of the drive so as to be operable by finger (i.e., without the use of a tool). It is the vendor’s responsibility to submit the information requested by the agency for evaluation purposes, and a vendor that does not do so runs the risk that its quotation will be rejected as unacceptable. 3K Office Furniture Distribution GmbH, B-292911, Dec. 18, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 231 at 4. Here, the only image that the protester furnished to the contracting officer prior to the technical evaluation on July 13 was the image of the drive incorporating a biometric switch that it proposed for the top secret drives. Even assuming that this image satisfied the RFQ requirement for an image of a finger-operated write-protect switch with regard to the top secret drives, the fact remains that the protester furnished no image of the switch that it was proposing for the unclassified and secret drives. While the protester maintains that it had previously furnished a color picture of a thumbdrive with an appropriate switch in response to an earlier RFQ that was cancelled, the protester made no reference to the previously submitted image in the quotation that it submitted in response to the RFQ here; given the lack of any reference to the previous submission, we do not see how the evaluators should have been expected to know of its existence and/or the fact that it was an image of the product that Joint Systems intended to furnish here. Accordingly, we think that the evaluators reasonably rejected the protester’s quotation as technically unacceptable for failing to furnish a picture of a write-protect switch conforming to the solicitation requirements for the secret and unclassified drives. (Joint Systems, Inc., B-298573, October 6, 2006) (pdf)

When using simplified acquisition procedures under FAR Part 13, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition. In reviewing protests against an allegedly improper simplified award selection, we examine the record to determine whether the agency met this standard and exercised its discretion reasonably. Dew Drop Sprinklers & Landscaping, B‑293963, July 15, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 171 at 3. The agency claims that telecommunications services were necessary to test and demonstrate the operability of the KVTS, and that it added the $7,000, which was taken from the same price schedule containing CUI’s $20,000 quotation to make the system operable, to account for these costs because “[t]he government also had to identify the cost of telecommunications within the CUI quotation in order to ensure [that] CUI had presented a viable proposal of reestablishing operability and testing of the KVTS,” given that CUI’s quotation did not specifically indicate that such costs were included. Contracting Officer’s Supplemental Statement at 3. CUI’s claim that the costs for necessary telecommunications were included in its $20,000 lump sum quotation is consistent with its e-mails and quotation, given that the quotation expressly included the acquisition of new cell phone lines and testing of the system, which could not be done without an active telecommunications service. In addition, CUI’s quotation clearly indicated that the $7,000 figure used by the agency in the evaluation was not the total monthly telecommunications charges, but was a proposed increase to the monthly communications charges under CUI’s maintenance contract, and that this proposed increase was not related to CUI’s quotation to make the system operable. Our review reveals no reasonable basis for the agency to assume that the $7,000 increase referred to in CUI’s quotation represented the cost of telecommunications that would be needed to make the system operable under the purchase order. In any case, the record evidences that the contracting officer did not ask CUI whether the costs for necessary telecommunications were included in its quotation or request CUI to separately price the telecommunications charges. Instead, when its quotation was solicited, CUI was asked to provide “a detailed proposal of what work and costs would be required to reestablish KVTS operability,” and for a “[p]roposed cost for the overall effort,” to reestablish the operability of the KVTS. Contracting Officer’s Supplemental Statement at 2; Agency Supplemental Report, Tab H, E-mail from Contracting Officer to CUI (Sept. 9, 2006). Before adding this $7,000 charge to CUI’s quotation for evaluation purposes, the agency, at a minimum, should have requested CUI to verify whether or not the costs for necessary telecommunications to accomplish the purchase order work were included in its $20,000 quotation. In sum, the agency unreasonably added CUI’s proposed $7,000 increase in its telecommunications monthly charge in the KVTS maintenance contract to CUI’s $20,000 quotation without first requesting that CUI verify whether the necessary telecommunications costs were already included in its quotation. On this record, CUI’s $20,000 quotation was the lowest-priced one, and CUI should have been issued the purchase order, if otherwise appropriate. Because we are advised by the agency that the performance under this purchase order has been completed, we recommend that CUI be reimbursed its quotation preparation costs as well as the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1), (2). CUI should submit its certified claim for costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly to the agency within 60 days of receiving this decision. (Computers Universal, Inc., B-297552,February 14, 2006)

We find the source selection to be reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. Although Dew Drop asserts that it was improper for the agency to consider the relative experience of the two offerors as a discriminator, the RFQ specifically stated that the agency would evaluate experience, along with past performance, technical ability to meet the requirements and price, and make award to the vendor whose quotation provided the best value after considering these factors. Further, while Dew Drop challenges the agency's position that the technical evaluation factors were important, arguing that the project was only a simple one, we note that the RFQ did not make price more significant than the technical factors. On the contrary, the RFQ did not specify the relative importance of the individual evaluation factors and, in the absence of any indication in the RFQ of the relative importance among the individual evaluation factors, they are presumed to be of equal importance. See Hyperbaric Techs., Inc. , B293047.2; B-293047.3, Feb.11, 2004, 2004 CPD 87 at 4; Maryland Office Relocators , B-291092, Nov. 12, 2002, 2002 CPD 198 at 5. Agency officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of the technical and cost evaluation results. Price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to which one is sacrificed for the other is governed by the test of rationality and consistency with the established factors. See Structural Preservation Sys., Inc. , B-285085, July 14, 2000, 2000 CPD 131 at 7. An agency may properly select a more highly rated quotation over one offering a lower price where it has reasonably determined that the technical superiority outweighs the price difference. See Sawtooth Enters., Inc. , supra. , at4. As explained above, the contracting officer determined that TML's non-price advantages warranted payment of that firm's higher price. Dew Drop has furnished no basis for our Office to question this determination. (Dew Drop Sprinklers & Landscaping, B-293963, July 15, 2004) (pdf)

Here, we find that the contracting officer failed to give any meaningful consideration to e-LYNXX’s substantially lower quotation price, given his inability to explain why Noosh’s superiority was worth the more than 65 percent higher price. More specifically, we question whether the contracting officer had a sufficient basis to perform a rational price/technical tradeoff where he testified that the open posting requirement was a key consideration in his analysis but that he did not understand the requirement or obtain any advice concerning it from anyone that did. We fail to see how the contracting officer can assign value for something he admittedly does not understand and for which he did not seek any advice, and we sustain e-LYNXX’s protest on this basis. (e-LYNXX Corporation, B-292761, December 3, 2003)  (pdf)

Under the circumstances, we find that the USDA's decisions to rate Houston's quotation unacceptable under the weight and balance factor and to not conduct discussions with that firm were reasonable and not unfair. The RFQ informed offerors that award would be made without discussions, RFQ § E.1(g), and it does not appear from the record that the exchanges afforded Commander an opportunity to revise its quotation. Given that Houston failed to provide the required weight and balance sheet, which rendered its quotation unacceptable under this factor, the agency did not have to engage in discussions with Houston to enable it to remedy this deficiency. CDS Network Sys., Inc., B‑281200, Dec. 21, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 154 at 3. (Houston Air, Inc., B-292382, August 25, 2003)  (pdf)

We recognize that the agency may have reasonably desired, and certainly could have required, that technical proposals include a detailed plan, as well as evidence of the vendors' understanding of the requirements and their qualifications and experience. That would be altogether appropriate and within the agency's discretion. Stating such desires and requirements is the purpose of evaluation criteria in a solicitation, and it is to provide transparency in our federal procurement process and fairness for those competing for federal contracts that, as explained above, agencies are required by procurement law to set out in the solicitation the evaluation criteria, and then to follow them. Here, the RFQ did not put vendors on notice of any of the requirements that the agency has now identified. In our view, it would be unfair for the agency, after the fact, to evaluate technical proposals based on criteria that the agency was required to identify before vendors submitted those proposals. See FAR §§ 13.106-1(a)(2), 13.106‑2(a)(2). We therefore sustain the protest. (SKJ & Associates, Inc., B-291533, January 13, 2003)  (pdf)  (text version)

Where an agency is not required to hold discussions or otherwise communicate with vendors regarding past performance information, as is the case where simplified acquisition procedures are employed, see FAR § 13.106-2(b)(2), and the contracting officer has no reason to question the validity of the past performance information, we think that she can reasonably rely on the information furnished without seeking to verify it or permitting the protester an opportunity to rebut it. Lynwood Mach. & Eng'g, Inc., B-285696, Sept. 18, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 113 at 7.  Moreover, we note that an agency's past performance evaluation may be based on a reasonable perception of inadequate prior performance, even where the protester disputes the agency's interpretation of the underlying facts.  Quality Fabricators, Inc., B-271431, B-271431.3, June 25, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 22 at 7. Thus, we conclude the agency's actions were unobjectionable.  (John Blood, B-290593, August 26, 2002)

Although an agency is not required to establish a competitive range or conduct discussions under simplified acquisition procedures, we think that where an agency avails itself of these negotiated procurement procedures, the agency should fairly and reasonably treat quoters in establishing the competitive range and conducting discussions. See Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, Oct. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 167 at 8-10.  

In sum, we find unreasonable the Corps's competitive range determination that included only Act II's quote. In making this judgment, the Corps apparently mistakenly believed that Act II's quote satisfied all the solicitation requirements and was acceptable. Instead, the record shows that two firms' quotes suffered from similar informational weaknesses that were susceptible of correction through discussions. We sustain KHA's protest because the Corps failed to treat the two firms fairly and equally with respect to conducting discussions.  (Kathryn Huddleston and Associates, Ltd., B-289453, March 11, 2002)

Where an agency is not required to hold discussions or to otherwise communicate with vendors regarding past performance information, as is the case here where simplified acquisition procedures were employed, see FAR sect. 13.106-2(b)(2), and where the evaluators and selection official have no reason to question the validity of the past performance information, they can reasonably rely on the information furnished without seeking to verify it or permitting the protester an opportunity to rebut it. See A.G. Cullen Constr., Inc., B-284049.2, Feb. 22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 45 at 5.  (Ocean Technical Services, Inc., B-288659, November 27, 2001)

In our view, it was inappropriate for the agency, on the one hand, to request quotes from the vendors for equipment for six locations and to issue a delivery order based on the prices for all six locations, and, on the other hand, for price evaluation purposes, to consider prices for only five locations. Procuring agencies do not have the discretion to announce one evaluation scheme and then follow another in the actual evaluation. Technical Support Servs., Inc., B-279665, B-279665.2, July 8, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 26 at 3. The record shows that, had the agency compared the quotes based on the prices proposed for all six locations, as requested by the agency, then the protester's quote would have been low. Nonetheless, based on the record here, the selection of the Solvetech system is unobjectionable. The agency solicited quotes orally, which is allowed under FAR sect.13.106-1(c), and while vendors were told that price would be the predominant consideration in the selection decision, vendors were also advised that other factors, such as life-cycle costs, standardization and ease of data extraction would also be considered. Telephone Hearing, Jan. 21, 2000. After evaluating price and technical considerations, the agency reasonably determined that the Solvetech system represented the better value.  (AudioCARE Systems, B-283985, January 31, 2000)

Even under simplified acquisition procedures, award decision is not reasonable where the record does not provide any documentation or explanation which supports the price/technical tradeoff, and the award determination appears to be based entirely on a comparison of total technical point scores without consideration of protester's lower technically scored, but low priced proposal.  (Universal Building Maintenance, Inc., B-282456, July 15, 1999)