Muddy Creek Oil and Gas, Inc.
Highlights
Muddy Creek Oil and Gas, Inc. protests a determination by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, that Muddy Creek's quotation, submitted in response to request for quotations No. RMA00050005 (RFQ) for firefighter meals, was unacceptable.
B-296836, Muddy Creek Oil and Gas, Inc., August 9, 2005
Decision
Matter of: Muddy Creek Oil and Gas, Inc.
Patricia Pourier for the protester.
Jeanne A. Anderson, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency.
Andrew J. Stephens, Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Where a protester's response to a request for quotations altered material terms and conditions of the solicitation, the agency reasonably determined that the quotation was unacceptable.
DECISION
Muddy Creek Oil and Gas, Inc. protests a determination by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, that Muddy Creek's quotation, submitted in response to request for quotations No. RMA00050005 (RFQ) for firefighter meals, was unacceptable.
On
The record here shows that where the solicitation specified that all meals be delivered to the Airport at
A quotation that fails to conform to material terms and conditions of the solicitation should be considered unacceptable and may not form the basis for an award. CAMS Inc., B-292546,
As a final matter, we recognize that certain conversations between Muddy Creek and Bureau employees may have led the company to expect that it would be awarded a sole-source contract, and that Muddy Creek apparently thought the RFQ here was that sole-source contract, and not a competitive solicitation. Once Muddy Creek received the RFQ, however, the protester's continued expectation that it was receiving a sole-source contract was unreasonable. The solicitation indicated it was a request for quotations on its face, and it included a description of the basis for award, which listed the factors of past performance, ability to meet schedule, price, and responsiveness. Muddy Creek, therefore, should have realized the agency was not negotiating a sole-source contract, but was conducting a competition, and cannot now prevail in its protest that it was treated unreasonably when the agency rejected its quotation because of the changes Muddy Creek made to the material terms and conditions of the solicitation.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel