United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: CHE Consulting, Inc. 

File: B-406639

Date: June 28, 2012

Steven E. Kellogg, Esq., The Kellogg Law Firm, P.C., for the protester.

Mark Langstein, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency.

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest is denied where the record shows that contracting agency reasonably 

determined that protester’s quotation was unacceptable due to an ambiguity relating 

to the period of performance.

DECISION

CHE Consulting, Inc., of Fenton, Missouri, protests the rejection of its quote under 

request for quotes (RFQ) No. RFQ661324, issued by the Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for computer 

maintenance services. CHE asserts that the agency unreasonably found that its 

quotation contained an ambiguity which rendered it unacceptable.

We deny the protest. 

The RFQ, issued on March 27, 2012, contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price

task order for a 1-year period of performance under the successful firm’s General 

Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule contract. The solicitation 

specified a period of performance from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013. RFQ 

clause XI. 

In response to the RFQ, NOAA received eight quotes by the March 30 deadline and 

CHE submitted the lowest price. The agency rejected CHE’s quote because the 

agency concluded that CHE’s quote appeared ambiguous with regard to the 

solicitation’s period of performance. Specifically, the CHE quote included the 

following language:
Page 2 B-406639 

Identifying the parts a customer requires to support their system 

platforms is the key to being successful. We accomplish parts 

identification through a thorough comprehensive on site systems 

platform audit prior to our contractual responsibility beginning.

CHE Quote at 13. Elsewhere, CHE’s quote included the notation: “Contract Start 

Date: To be Determined (TBD),” and identified the period of performance as 

follows: “Term: 12 months 1 Apr 2012 – 31 Mar 2013.” CHE Quote, Schedule of 

Services, at 1. 

NOAA concluded that CHE’s quote was ambiguous because it appeared to have 

qualified its obligation under the terms of the RFQ to provide the computer 

maintenance services from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013. Agency Report, exh. 7, 

at 2. The agency awarded the task order to SMS Systems Maintenance Services, 

the incumbent and the firm submitting the second lowest price. After being advised 

of the agency’s rejection of its quote and award to SMS, CHE filed this protest. 

CHE asserts that the agency improperly rejected its quote. According to the 

protester, it unambiguously offered to perform the contract during the period of 

performance and was simply offering its parts audit as an additional service at no 

cost to the government. CHE also maintains that its parts audit would have taken it 

no more than a day to perform and that there was enough time between when its 

quote was due under the terms of the RFQ (March 30) and when performance was 

to begin (April 1) for it to have performed its parts audit; according to the protester, 

anyone familiar with the industry--including the agency’s personnel--would have 

known this. We find no merit to the protest. 

In reviewing protests of an agency's evaluation, our Office does not reevaluate 

vendors' quotations; rather, we review the record to ensure that the agency's 

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 

Commercial Window Shield, B-400154, July 2, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 134 at 2. A 

proposal or quotation that contains an ambiguity as to whether the offeror will 

comply with a material requirement of the solicitation renders the proposal or 

quotation unacceptable. Solers, Inc.

2011 CPD ¶ 83 at 7 n.6; 

, B-404032.3, B-404032.4, Apr. 6, 2011, 

Rel–Tek Sys. & Design, Inc., B–280463.3, Nov. 25, 1998, 

99-1 CPD ¶ 2 at 3. 

We find that NOAA reasonably concluded that CHE’s quote was ambiguous 

regarding whether CHE intended to meet the RFQ’s requirements with respect to 

the period of performance. The agency concluded that the express terms of CHE’s 

quote conditioned the firm’s contractual responsibility--in effect its legal obligation to 

perform--on its completion of the parts audit. The record also shows that there was 

no basis to understand, from the information included in CHE’s quote, how long the 

protester’s proposed parts audit would take and, correspondingly, whether it could 

be completed in the time between when its quote was submitted and the RFQ’s 
Page 3 B-406639 

contemplated start date for performance. CHE introduced additional uncertainty 

regarding whether it intended to perform in accordance with the terms of the RFQ’s 

period of performance by stating that the start date for performance was ‘to be 

determined.’

In view of these considerations, and in light of the fact that it was incumbent upon 

CHE to submit an adequately written quote, we conclude that the agency properly

rejected the quote from further consideration because it was ambiguous.1

 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 1 CHE also suggests that the agency unreasonably interpreted its quote and only 

allowed for a short period of time from the issuance of the RFQ to the date of 

performance in an effort to ensure that award would be made to SMS, on what CHE 

characterizes as a sole-source basis. To the extent that CHE thought there was an 

inadequate amount of time between the issuance of the RFQ and the contemplated 

period of performance, it was required to raise its concern before the deadline for 

submitting quotes, since such a concern amounts to an alleged impropriety 

apparent on the face of the solicitation. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2 

(a)(1) (2012). In any event, in light of the fact that there were seven firms remaining 

in the competition after the elimination of the CHE quote, we find no merit to the 

suggestion that the agency unreasonably interpreted the CHE quote in an effort to 

make award to SMS on a sole-source basis.