(sections deleted)

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) generally requires contracting agencies to obtain full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures, the dual purpose of which is to ensure that a procurement is open to all responsible sources and to provide the government with the opportunity to receive fair and reasonable prices. 41 U.S.C. sect. 253(a)(1)(A) (2006). In pursuit of these goals, a contracting agency must use reasonable methods to publicize its procurement needs and to timely disseminate solicitation documents to those entitled to receive them. Kendall Healthcare Prods. Co., B-289381, Feb. 19, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 42 at 6. The official public medium for providing notice of contracting actions by federal agencies is the FedBizOpps website, which has been designated by statute and regulation as the government-wide point of entry. 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(e); 41 U.S.C. sect. 416; FAR sections 2.101, 5.101(a)(1), 5.201(d). An agency's notice must provide an "accurate description" of the property or services to be purchased and must be sufficient to allow a prospective contractor to make an informed business judgment as to whether to request a copy of the solicitation. See 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(f); Jess Bruner Fire Suppression, B‑296533, Aug. 19, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 163 at 4. In this regard, the FAR requires agencies to use one of the procurement classification codes identified at the FedBizOpps website to identify services or supplies in its notices on FedBizOpps, see FAR sect. 5.207(e), and contracting officers must use the most appropriate classification category. See Gourmet Distributors, B‑259083, Mar. 6, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 130 at 2. We have found that an agency failed to effectively notify potential offerors of a procurement and to obtain full and open and competition under CICA, where the agency misclassified the procurement. See Frank Thatcher Assocs., Inc., B-228744, Nov. 12, 1987, 87‑2 CPD para. 480 at 2-3 (misclassification of procurement in the Commerce Business Daily, formerly the official public medium for identifying proposed contract actions and now replaced by FedBizOpps).

Here, FEMA classified this acquisition for support services under a miscellaneous code for products, rather than services. FEMA's contracting officer contends that none of the service codes appeared applicable to the support services for THUs sought here. We find, however, as explained below, that although no service code was an exact match, a number of service codes include services such as those solicited here, and FEMA does not reasonably explain why one of these service codes would not have been more appropriate than a miscellaneous product code, which indicated that the agency was procuring goods.

The SOW listed a number of services categories, including clerical and office support, vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair, material handling, maintenance and placement of THUs, and maintenance of buildings and facilities. RFP, SOW, at C-2-C-5. A number of service codes appear to encompass similar services, such as codes J, "Maintenance, Repair & Rebuilding of Equipment," M, "Operation of Government-owned Facilities," and R, "Professional, Administrative, and Management Support Services."

FEMA's contracting officer acknowledges that facilities support services described by NAICS code 561210 are often posted under code M, but she states that she did not use this code because "sites on which the services will take place" are not owned by FEMA, but leased from commercial or public entities. See AR, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 1. The contracting officer also did not use codes J or R, because these codes included some services that were not solicited by the RFP. Id. at 2. Although we agree that none of the service codes is an exact match for the services solicited by the RFP, it is incumbent upon the agency to classify its procurement under the most appropriate category to promote competition. Gourmet Distributors, B‑259083, supra, at 2-3. The agency has provided no reasonable explanation, and the record does not otherwise show, why code 99, a miscellaneous product code, is a better match than one of these service codes. In this regard, we found from our own review of the FedBizOpps website that a number of procurements that include NAICS code 561210 were classified under either code J, M, or R, but no procurement with this NAICS code was classified under code 99. In short, we find no reasonable basis for FEMA's classification of this procurement under product code 99.

Notwithstanding the requirement to classify procurements accurately, FEMA argues that the availability of electronic search engines has "changed the issue of who is responsible for finding notice of an acquisition when it is misclassified." AR at 3. Specifically, FEMA argues, citing our decision in Jess Bruner Fire Suppression, B‑296533, supra., that "a prudent offeror would have found the announcement regardless of the product or service classification code because of the key words used in the FedBizOpps announcement." AR at 2. Our decision in Jess Bruner did not involve a solicitation posted on FedBizOpps under an improper classification code. Product and service codes are provided to make manageable searches of large numbers of procurements; that is, the classification codes allow potential offerors to narrow their searches in a meaningful way to find procurement opportunities. Misclassifying a procurement makes difficult, if not impossible, the task of locating procurement opportunities under other search terms. Here, because TMI reasonably relied in its search on the codes that most closely represented the types of services it could provide--M and R--as a means to narrow the search results, it could not have found this listing no matter what additional search terms it entered or selected. FEMA's argument that a prudent vendor could have used various available search terms, such as the NAICS code, to locate the listing assumes the vendor would anticipate that the procuring agency might have misclassified the requirement and would therefore omit any product or service code from its search. We find this assumption unreasonable.

In conclusion, we find that FEMA's misclassification of this procurement deprived TMI of an opportunity to respond to the RFP and that FEMA therefore did not use reasonable methods to obtain full and open competition as required by CICA. Frank Thatcher Assocs., Inc., supra, at 2-3.  (TMI Management Systems, Inc., B-401530, September 28, 2009) (pdf)

A synopsis must provide an "accurate description" of the property or services to be purchased and must be sufficient to allow a prospective contractor to make an informed business judgment as to whether to request a copy of the solicitation. 41 U.S.C. sect. 416(b); 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(f); see also Pacific Sky Supply, Inc., B-225420, Feb. 24, 1987, 87-1 CPD para. 206 at 4-5 (protest sustained where a sole-source synopsis identified only 2 of 15 items included in the solicitation, thereby failing to provide an "accurate description" of the procurement, as required by the Small Business Act). In addition, the FAR requires that the description of the supplies or services be "clear and concise." FAR sect. 5.207(c), (d). Moreover, as directly relevant here, a synopsis must provide prospective alternative sources a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their ability to provide what the agency seeks to purchase. See Sabreliner Corp., B-288030, B‑288030.2, Sept. 13, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 170 at 6-7 (protest challenging sole-source award sustained where both the justification and the published synopsis inaccurately described the requirements to overhaul helicopter engines). In short, the fundamental purpose of these notices, including in the circumstance where an agency contemplates a sole-source award, is to enhance the possibility of competition. Information Ventures, Inc., B-293541, Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 81 at 4. Here, the notice, as issued, did not meaningfully describe DOE’s requirements. As quoted above, the notice merely identifies the contract number that is being extended and indicates that the work involves "critical, highly specialized technical and administrative support," yet provides essentially no information about the experience and abilities that DOE believes potential sources need to have. Even though the agency’s evaluation of the two capability statements identifies numerous specific topics as being essential to successful performance, or even "of utmost importance," none of these capabilities is mentioned in the synopsis. In our view, DOE’s requirements were not adequately described in the notice, and the notice did not provide enough information to allow prospective sources a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate the ability to meet the agency’s requirements. In this regard, Thompson advises that it has extensive experience in managing classified information in the subject areas relevant to the procurement; that it has the ability to identify and retain additional staff with the required backgrounds and security clearances; and that it would have competed for the contract had the agency accurately described its needs. PMTech makes similar assertions. By providing an inadequate description of its sole-source procurement in the synopsis, DOE restricted competition in violation of statute and regulation. Moreover, DOE compounded the shortcomings of this particular notice by providing no information on the availability of a statement of work and by stating in the synopsis that the notice “is for informational purposes only and is not a request for proposals or other information.” Cf. 41 U.S.C. sect. 416(b)(4); 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(f); FAR sect. 5.207(c)(15). The protesters and the Small Business Administration (SBA) argue, and we agree, that the language of the synopsis discouraged, and may have been intended to discourage, responses. (M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC; PMTech, Inc., B-297616; B-297616.2, February 14, 2006) (pdf)