United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: U.S. Hotel Sourcing, LLC 

File: B-406726

Date: August 13, 2012

Jon Hansen for the protester.

William H. Butterfield, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast 

Guard, for the agency.

Jonathan M. Kucskar, Esq., Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., 

Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. GAO will not review a protest that an agency was required to extend the

performance of the protester’s existing order, rather than soliciting competition for 

the issuance of a new order.

2. Protest that an agency did not synopsize its simplified acquisition requirement is 

denied, where the agency reasonably found that the requirement was too urgent to 

allow public posting of the solicitation.

3. Where a request for quotations does not identify any evaluation factors or inform 

vendors of the basis for the agency’s award selection, price is necessarily the only 

factor considered.

DECISION

U.S. Hotel Sourcing, LLC of Newton, Massachusetts, protests the issuance of order 

No. HSCG85-12-F-P45G34 to Bluewater Management Group, of Norfolk, Virginia, 

by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for berthing 

and messing services. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2012, the Coast Guard solicited quotations under the streamlined 

commercial acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 
Page 2 B-406726 

12.6 for the berthing and messing of the 52-person crew of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Cutter Maple, while in drydock. Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, Combined 

Synopsis/Solicitation. The Coast Guard issued a $96,999 order to U.S. Hotel 

Sourcing for performance of these services from April 2 to May 2. AR, Tab 10, 

Order No. HSCG85-12-P-P45939. This order contained no provisions for extension

of performance.

On April 26, the Coast Guard asked U.S. Hotel Sourcing about extending 

performance of the order until May 10. U.S. Hotel Sourcing responded that it could 

extend performance if the Coast Guard permitted the protester to move the crew to

a different hotel on May 5. The Coast Guard informed the protester that this 

arrangement would “not work” and that “a new contract be put in place . . . .” See

AR, Tab 9, Emails between Contracting Officer and Protester, April 26-27, 2012, 

at 2-3. 

On April 27, the Coast Guard, pursuant to the simplified acquisition procedures of 

FAR Part 13, asked that U.S. Hotel Sourcing provide a new quotation for berthing 

and messing services from May 2 to May 11. AR, Tab 3, Contracting Officer’s 

Email to Protester, May 2, 2012, at 1; Tab 9, Emails between Contracting Officer 

and Protester, April 26-27, 2012, at 1. The agency’s email request included 

minimum specifications, such as using a 2 or 3 diamond-rated hotel within 10 miles 

of the drydock repair site. Id. The agency’s request for quotations did not identify 

any evaluation criteria.

The Coast Guard received three quotations, including U.S. Hotel Sourcing’s 

$29,385 quotation and Bluewater’s $27,216 quotation. Contracting Officer’s 

Statement at 1; AR, Tab 8, U.S. Hotel Sourcing Quotation, at 2. The Coast Guard 

issued an order to Bluewater, as the vendor with the lowest-priced quotation. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1; AR, Tab 4, Order No. - P45G34. This protest 

followed.

DISCUSSION

U.S. Hotel Sourcing makes a number of arguments challenging the issuance of the 

order to Bluewater, none of which we find provides a basis for objecting to the 

Coast Guard’s conduct of this procurement.

U.S. Hotel Sourcing first complains that the Coast Guard should have extended its

existing order, rather than seeking quotations for the issuance of a new order. We 

dismiss this ground of protest because a contractor has no legal right to compel an 

agency to extend an order, even where the order provides an option for extending 

performance. Contract options are exercised solely at the discretion of the 

government, and a contractor cannot compel an agency to exercise an option in its 
Page 3 B-406726 

contract.1 California Shorthand Reporting, B-236680, Dec. 22, 1989, 89-2 CPD 

¶ 584 at 2. 

Moreover, the protester’s order provided no option for extension; therefore,

extension of U.S. Hotel Sourcing’s order would essentially be a separate, 

noncompetitive procurement. See Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc.; Int’l Tech. Corp.–

Claim for Costs, B-249452, B-250377.2, Nov. 23, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 366 at 3-4. 

Simplified acquisition procedures, which agencies are required to use to the 

maximum extent practicable for the purchase of supplies and services not 

exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, see FAR § 13.003(a), require 

agencies to obtain competition to the maximum extent practicable. FAR 

§§ 13.003(h)(1), 13.104. Because the value of these berthing and messing services 

is below the simplified acquisition threshold, the Coast Guard was required to obtain 

competition to the maximum extent practicable in satisfying this requirement.

U.S. Hotel Sourcing also complains that the Coast Guard failed to inform the 

protester that the agency was soliciting quotations from other vendors and, in this 

regard, failed to synopsize this requirement on the FedBizOpps website. 

FAR §§ 5.101, 5.201 and 5.203 contain detailed synopsis and posting requirements 

that are generally applicable to all procurements, including those subject to the 

simplified acquisition procedures. FAR § 5.202 lists the exceptions to these 

requirements. See also FAR § 13.105(a) (“The contracting officer must comply with 

the public display and synopsis requirements of 5.101 and 5.203 unless an 

exception in 5.202 applies.”) One such exception is where the agency reasonably 

determines that urgency precludes complying with the public notice requirements. 

See FAR § 5.202(a)(2); Specialty Marine, Inc., B-296988, Oct. 11, 2005, 2005 CPD 

¶ 177 at 3-4. Here, the Coast Guard’s determination of urgency was reasonable 

given the short time (six days) between its request for quotations and the beginning 

of performance. Although the protester disagrees that the requirement was urgent, 

this disagreement does not show that the agency acted unreasonably. In any 

event, the protester was not deprived of an opportunity to compete for this 

requirement.

With respect to U.S. Hotel Sourcing’s complaint that the agency did not explicitly 

inform the protester that the agency was also obtaining quotations from other 

vendors, we think that the protester should have assumed that the agency was 

obtaining competition, given the competition requirements of FAR part 13. In any 

 1 We will not generally question an agency’s decision to procure services 

competitively rather than to obtain them on a sole-source basis since the objective 

of our bid protest function to ensure competition for government contracts. Mary Jo 

McDonough, B-270530, B-270530.2, Mar. 13, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 154 at 6. 
Page 4 B-406726 

event, the protester does not state that it would have submitted a lower-priced 

quotation had it known, or otherwise explain how it was prejudiced.

U.S. Hotel Sourcing also speculates that the only reason it did not receive award 

was based upon the agency’s judgment as to the quality of the service that the 

protester provided under the prior order. See Protest at 5-6. Here, the record 

shows that issuance of the order to Bluewater was based upon that firm’s low price, 

and not upon any assessment of past performance. In this regard, where a request 

for quotations does not identify any evaluation factors or inform vendors of the basis 

for the agency’s award selection, price is necessarily the only factor considered. 

See Para Scientific Co., B-299046.2, Feb. 13, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 37 at 2 n.2.

2

 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 2 We recognize that the contracting officer informed the protester after the issuance 

of the order to Bluewater that the contracting officer’s “responsibility was to get the 

Government the best price and service.” AR, Tab 5, Contracting Officer’s Email to 

Protester, Apr. 30, 2012, at 1. As noted above, however, the record shows that the 

basis for issuance of the order was price alone. In any event, the agency’s 

post-award explanations do not provide a basis here to object to the agency’s 

conduct of the procurement. We review an agency’s award based on the evaluation 

record, not the information it provides to a losing bidder after the award decision. 

Nippo Corp., B-402363.2, May 5, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 112 at 3.