Section 13.101(b)(1) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
expressly recognizes that either single or multiple awards are
permissible in the context of simplified acquisitions, and our
Office has consistently held that where, as here, a solicitation
does not require a single award, multiple awards may be made.
See, e.g., Weather Experts, Inc., B-255103, Feb. 9, 1994, 94-1
CPD para. 93 at 3 (invitation for bids (IFB)); Goodman Ball,
Inc., B‑217318, Mar. 25, 1985, 85-1 CPD para. 348 at 3 (IFB).
Given that it was within the agency’s discretion to make either
a single award or multiple awards, we review for reasonableness
the agency’s exercise of that discretion in making a single
award to Fisher Scientific. See Weather Experts, Inc., supra;
American Bank Note Co., B‑222589, Sept. 18, 1986, 86-2 CPD para.
316 (RFP). Although the FAR recognizes that multiple awards may
be made under FAR Part 13 procurements, neither the FAR nor case
law provides any specific guidance as to when multiple awards
are either appropriate or required in these procurements. The
FAR does, however, provide guidance regarding single or multiple
awards in the context of sealed bidding and negotiated
acquisitions. For example, in the context of sealed bidding, the
FAR advises that IFBs are to provide for multiple awards where
the contracting officer determines that multiple awards “might
be made if doing so is economically advantageous to the
Government.” FAR sect. 14.201-6(q). Section 14.201-8(c) of the
FAR adds that after the receipt of bids, “[t]he contracting
officer shall assume, for the purpose of making multiple awards,
that $500 would be the administrative cost to the Government for
issuing and administering each contract awarded under a
solicitation,” and that “[i]ndividual awards shall be for the
items or combinations of items that result in the lowest
aggregate cost to the Government, including the assumed
administrative costs.” In the context of negotiated
acquisitions, the FAR requires that RFPs inform offerors that
“the Government reserves the right to make multiple awards if,
after considering the additional administrative costs, it is in
the Government’s best interest to do so.” FAR sect.
52.215-1(f)(6); see FAR sect. 15.209(a) (requiring the inclusion
of FAR sect. 52.215-1). Although neither Part 14 or Part 15 of
the FAR is applicable to the simplified acquisition here, we
believe the above‑referenced provisions of these parts are
instructive regarding the reasonableness of the agency’s
determination that multiple awards were not in the government’s
best interests. The agency explains with regard to its
determination to make a single award to Fisher Scientific as
follows:
This award was for a fixed
amount of items that are consistently offered commercially by
vendors. The rationale for making one award was mainly due to
making sound business and financial sense. To make multiple
awards would create an administrative financial burden as well
as ineffective use of Government resources. For example, to
make more than one award on one requisition, it would create
the same amount of administrative burden/resources for each
subsequent award (i.e., staff time, administrative costs,
shipping costs, etc.). Given the small amount of the
procurement ($32,159.12), it would have been a minimal saving
for splitting this into two awards. So, in turn, one order is
financially beneficially to the Government than making more
than one award to multiple vendors. Thus, the Government
determined that it was in its best interest to make one
complete award which provide the best value for the
Government. Contracting Officer’s Supplemental Statement at 1.
Contrary to the agency’s
assumptions regarding the potential savings that could be
achieved given the “small amount of the procurement,” a review
of the item-by-item prices quoted by Para Scientific and Fisher
Scientific reveals that Para Scientific’s prices for six of the
items are substantially less than the prices quoted by Fisher
Scientific, and that the agency would have saved the government,
absent the consideration of any administrative costs incurred, a
total of $8,363.97, had the agency made an award to Para
Scientific for those items.[6] Given that in an IFB context the
administrative expenses are assumed to be $500 for each
additional award, the savings that could have been achieved
through an additional award to Para Scientific would appear to
more than offset any additional administrative costs the agency
would have incurred, and as such, there is nothing in the record
to suggest that it would have been other than “economically
advantageous to the Government” or other than “in the
Government’s best interest” to make such an award.[7] See FAR
sections 14.201-6(c), 52.215-1(f)(6); Weather Experts, Inc.,
supra. Accordingly, we find that the agency’s determination here
lacks a reasonable basis, and that the agency should have
awarded an additional contract under this RFQ to Para Scientific
for the six items for which Para Scientific quoted lower prices.
(Para Scientific Company,
B-299046.2, February 13, 2007) (pdf) |
