The agency solicited quotations from three FSS contract holders, but the agency did not seek a quotation from the protester. The protester argued the agency knew the protester was interested, so it should have requested a quotation from the protester, too. But the solicitation was below the simplified acquisition threshold, so, regardless of the protester’s interest, the agency was only required to seek quotes from three vendors.
Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc., GAO B-422547
- Solicitation – The agency issued a solicitation using the FSS procedures of FAR 8.405-1. The agency posted the solicitation under a specific special item number (SIN). The protester did not submit a proposal because it did not have the relevant SIN on its FSS schedule.
- Opportunity to Compete – The protester reasoned that the agency knew the protester was interested in the solicitation and thus should have given the protester an opportunity to compete. GAO found the agency had no such obligation. The supplies at issue were above the micro-purchase level but below the simplified acquisition threshold. In that situation, the agency is only required to request quotations from three schedule contractors. The agency solicited three contractors; it didn’t need to ask the protester for a quotation.
- Different SIN – The protester argued the agency erred in making an award to an offeror who had the required product under a SIN that differed from the one under which the solicitation was posted. GAO didn’t see a problem. The solicitation did not prevent vendors from providing items listed under different SINs. The FAR does not require an agency to identify an applicable SIN when ordering from an FSS contract.
The protester is represented by C. Chad Gill. The agency is represented by William Blake of the Department of Energy. GAO attorneys Suresh S. Boodram and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
