United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision 

Matter of: W K Engineering International, Inc. 

File: B-402828 

Date: July 30, 2010 

Jonathan R. Hickman, Esq., Negele & Associates, for the protester. 

Nicole M. Franchetti, Esq., Michael D. Delaney, Esq. and Judith Pullman Gever, Esq., 

Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. 

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST 

Under procurement for aircraft ground safety pins conducted under simplified 

acquisition procedures, agency properly made award for more than requested 

“primary quantity,” where solicitation requested prices for additional incremental 

quantities and indicated that award of additional quantities could be made without 

obtaining revised prices or conducting discussions. 

DECISION 

W K Engineering International, Inc. (WKE) of Valencia, California protests the 

issuance of a purchase order to QRP, Inc. of Leland, North Carolina under request 

for quotations (RFQ) No. SPM8EF-10-Q-0326, by the Defense Logistics Agency, 

Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) for 2,400 aircraft ground safety pins. 

We deny the protest. 

The agency issued the RFQ on March 5, 2010, as a total small business set-aside, and 

provided that the agency would use simplified acquisition procedures as contained 

in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13. The aircraft ground safety pins for 

which prices were solicited were described and identified by a national stock 

number (NSN). Regarding the quantity of aircraft safety pins being ordered, the RFQ 

stated the following: 
INCREMENTAL QUANTITIES: 

PRIMARY QTY 815 EA 

FIRST INCREMENTAL QTY 1600 EA 

SECOND INCREMENTAL QTY 2400 EA 

THE ABOVE INFORMATION REFLECTS TOTAL QUANTITIES 

FOR EACH NSN. SEE BELOW FOR INDIVIDUAL 

LINE/DESTINATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDE 

PRICING ACCORDINGLY 

RFQ at 3. The RFQ also included Note 1 which stated that “[t]his was solicited with 

incremental quantities of 1,600 & 2,400,” in addition to the primary quantity solicited. 

RFQ at 2. The solicitation also provided for the submission of separate prices for 

primary and incremental quantities under two separate contract line item numbers 

(CLIN) for delivery to two different locations as follows: 

CLIN 0001: 

 PRIMARY QUANTITY 49 EA $ __________ 

 FIRST INCREMENTAL QTY 100 EA $ __________ 

 SECOND INCREMENTAL QTY 150 EA $ __________ 

CLIN 0002: 

 PRIMARY QUANTITY 766 EA $ __________ 

 FIRST INCREMENTAL QTY 1500 EA $ __________ 

 SECOND INCREMENTAL QTY 2250 EA $ __________ 

RFQ at 4-6. 

The solicitation also incorporated by reference Defense Logistics Acquisition 

Directive (DLAD) Clause 52.213-9000, Quantity Break (JUL 1999), RFQ at 12, which 

provides in pertinent part: 

If yet lower unit prices are available for greater quantities, offerors are 

requested to enter the lower unit prices and quantity ranges to which 

such prices will apply. The Government may elect to accept such 

alternate quantity quotations not exceeding $100,000 without further 

solicitation or discussion. 

http://www.dla.mil/j-3/j-3311/DLAD/DLADrev5.htm (website identified in solicitation 

provision incorporating DLA clauses by reference, RFQ at 10). Where the quantity 

break clause was incorporated by reference in the RFQ, three blank lines were 

provided for vendors to list quantity ranges and unit prices. RFQ at 12. 

Page 2 B-402828 
The RFQ closed on March 17. Seven vendors submitted timely quotes. Three 

vendors, including the awardee, provided unit prices for both the primary and 

incremental quantities solicited. The remaining four vendors, including the 

protester, provided pricing for only the primary quantities. Agency Report, Tab 4, 

Abstract of Quotes. The contracting officer decided that a purchase of the second 

incremental quantity solicited in the RFQ of 2,400 units would best suit the needs of 

the government based on anticipated demand, stock, and backorders. Agency 

Report, Tab 8, Memorandum for the Record (Apr. 8, 2010). Accordingly, the 

contracting officer determined to award the purchase order to QRP, the vendor that 

submitted the lowest price for the incremental quantity of 2,400 units solicited. Id. 

QRP’s quoted price was $19.79 per unit for 2,400 units for a total price of $47,496. 

Agency Report, Tab 5, QRP’s Quotation. 

Subsequently, WKE submitted an agency-level protest, in which it argued that the 

award to QRP was improper, given that WKE had submitted a lower-priced quote of 

$16,390 to supply the primary quantity of 815 units. Agency Report, Tab 10, WKE 

Agency-Level Protest (Apr. 12, 2010). The agency denied WKE’s agency-level protest 

on April 27, noting that WKE failed to quote unit pricing for the incremental quantity 

of 2,400 units, and that in any case WKE’s price would be higher than the awardee’s 

price based on quoted unit prices for the primary CLIN quantities. Agency Report, 

Tab 11, Agency Denial of WKE’s Protest (Apr. 27, 2010). This protest to our Office 

followed. 

The protester challenges the authority of the contracting officer to award the 

contract to QRP for quantities in excess of the primary quantities identified for the 

two CLINS without amending the RFP and resoliciting the quotations to obtain 

prices for the total incremental quantities. In this regard, WKE contends that each 

RFQ CLIN indicated only one quantity (that is the “primary quantity”) that “DSCP 

intended to purchase” and that there was nothing in the solicitation that would 

reasonably have put WKE on notice that the contracting officer might make award 

based on the incremental quantity without obtaining new prices. The end result, 

according to WKE, was that the agency obtained a higher unit price than would be 

obtained if the government had resolicited the procurement for the increased 

quantity or “obtained a clarification of WKE’s original bid.” Protest at 2. 

Where, as here, simplified acquisition procedures are used, contracting agencies are 

to use innovative approaches to the maximum extent practicable in order to award 

contracts in the manner that is most suitable, efficient and economical in the 

circumstances of the acquisition. FAR § 13.003(g), (h); see Bosco Contracting, Inc., 

B-270366, Mar. 4, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 140 at 2. When using these procedures, an agency 

must conduct the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable 

competition and must evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms of the 

solicitation. In reviewing protests of an allegedly improper simplified acquisition 

evaluation, we examine the record to determine whether the agency met this 

Page 3 B-402828 
Page 4 B-402828 

standard and exercised its discretion reasonably. Russell Enters. of N. Carolina, Inc., 

B-292320, July 17, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 134 at 3. 

Here, we find that the solicitation put vendors on notice that the contracting officer 

might make award for the higher incremental quantities rather than just the primary 

quantities, without obtaining revised prices or conducting discussions. Specifically, 

DLAD § 52.213-9000 provided that, if lower unit prices were available for greater 

quantities, “the Government may elect to accept such alternate quantity quotations 

not exceeding $100,000 without further solicitation or discussion.” The RFQ also 

specifically requested prices for the incremental quantities up to 2,400 units.1 While 

the protester argues that it could have offered lower prices if the agency had held 

discussions with WKE, the agency was not required to engage in discussions with 

WKE for the purpose of improving the terms of its quote, especially where WKE 

elected not to provide prices for the incremental quantities. Under the 

circumstances, we find that the agency reasonably placed the order with QRP, the 

vendor that offered the lowest prices for the incremental quantity of 2,400 units. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

 

1

 To the extent that WKE viewed this solicitation provision or any other protest 

provision, as otherwise contrary to other aspects of the RFQ, any protest on that 

basis had to be filed prior to the time set for submission of quotations, in order to be 

timely under our Bid Protest Regulations. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2010).