A firm protested the issuance of a request for quotations (RFQ) for operations research/systems analysis support, contending that it had a contract with the procuring agency for the same work as that described in the RFQ, and that the RFQ was deficient in that it was inconsistent and confusing in describing the agency's requirements and evaluation methods. The record indicated that the materiel acquisition process concerned here involves three principal groups of people: the researcher/inventor, the producer, and the user. Identical language may be used to describe each of these related services. The work statements clearly indicated that similar services were required but under different circumstances, and while the protester's contract with the agency involved user needs, the RFQ called for services aimed at the producer. GAO knew of no laws or regulations which prohibit a contracting activity from using similar or even identical language in an existing contract and RFQ to describe the services required. Also, it was unobjectionable in this case since it was clear that the work was required under different circumstances. GAO did not find the RFQ to be deficient or ambiguous since ambiguity can only exist if two or more reasonable interpretations are possible, which was not the case here. Therefore, the protest was denied.
Skip to Highlights