B-247477, May 22, 1992

B-247477, May 22, 1992

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Information disclosure - Competitive advantage PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Non-prejudicial allegation - GAO review DIGEST: Protest alleging that agency may have improperly disclosed protester's proprietary material is denied where the record contains no evidence which supports the protester's speculative claim. K. J. Kidd for the protester. Charles J. McManus, Esq., Douglas P. Larsen, Esq., and Scott E. Miller, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Daniel I. Gordon, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

Productive Office Concepts:

Productive Office Concepts (POC) protests the award to Nova Business Furnishings of a contract for disassembly, transport and reassembly of office work stations under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N0429A-92-Q 0140, issued by the Department of the Navy. POC contends that proprietary data contained in its quotation might have been improperly disclosed to Nova and used by that company in its quotation.

We deny the protest.

Because the anticipated contract amount was less than $25,000, the Navy conducted the procurement under the small purchase procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13. Pursuant to those procedures, the contracting officer solicited quotations from three sources, including POC. After conducting a site visit, as permitted by the RFQ, POC submitted a quotation price of $38,425 on December 16, 1991. The other two companies solicited did not submit quotations.

Because only one quotation was received, and that quotation was considerably above $25,000, the contracting officer decided to solicit quotations from two additional sources, one of which was Nova. After a site visit, the latter firm submitted a quotation in the amount of $14,000 on January 22, 1992. /1/ A purchase order was issued to Nova for that amount on January 22, 1992.

POC contends that the length of time between the date it submitted its quotation, which included its layout plans and drawings, and the date that Nova submitted a quotation suggests that POC's proprietary information may have been provided by the agency to Nova. POC alleges that its review of Nova's plans, during the course of the protest proceedings, reveals similarities between the companies' plans, thus supporting the probability of improper disclosure of proprietary information. The agency states that it did not release POC's plans or any other information contained in POC's quotation to Nova.

The record contains no evidence that the agency conveyed to Nova, either directly or indirectly, POC's plans or any other aspect of POC's response to the RFQ. It is clear from the record that the delay between the submission date of POC's and Nova's responses to the RFQ was caused by the agency's reasonable decision to solicit quotations from additional sources. No other evidence, even circumstantial evidence, indicates that any improper disclosure occurred. The general similarities alleged by POC to exist between the two companies' plans do not constitute such evidence, particularly since all that is involved is a rudimentary layout for an established office space area. In the absence of evidence to support the protester's assertion, we can not sustain the protest. Contract Int'l Corp., 70 Comp.Gen. 115 (1990), 90-2 CPD Para. 442; Oak St. Distribution Center, Inc., B-243197, July 2, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 14; Jordan- Delaurenti, Inc., B-222576, July 22, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 91.

The protest is denied.

/1/ The other source submitted a quote of $15,776.