[Protest of HUD Rejection of Bid and Contract Award for Real Estate Closing Services]
Highlights
A firm protested the Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) rejection of its bid and subsequent contract award for real estate closing services, contending that HUD improperly: (1) excluded its bid from the competitive range; and (2) made award to the awardee at a higher price. GAO held that: (1) HUD reasonably determined that the awardee's technically superior, higher-priced bid represented the best value to the government; (2) HUD reasonably determined that the protester's bid would require significant revision to become technically acceptable; and (3) the protester was not sufficiently interested to protest the award, since it would not have been in line for award even if its protest were sustained. Accordingly, the protest was denied.
B-147790, OCT. 7, 1964
TO VICE ADMIRAL JOSEPH M. LYLE, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1964, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM MR. R. M. LEMKE, COUNSEL, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY (YOUR REFERENCE: DSAH -G), CONCERNING THE PETITION OF MILES METAL CORPORATION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, FOR REMISSION ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS OF STORAGE CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,272.00 ASSESSED UNDER CONTRACT DA/S/14-021-AV-627 AND INVITATION FOR BIDS 14-021-S-61-26.
IT IS STATED THAT THE STORAGE CHARGE RATE EMPLOYED BY MILES METAL'S CONTRACT WAS ONE WHICH WAS DEVELOPED AND UTILIZED PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY. AT THAT TIME EACH MILITARY SERVICE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SALE OF ALL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN A SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHICAL AREA. UPON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS SERVICES CENTER WAS GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM. IN ORDER TO STANDARDIZE THE SALES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES THE CENTER REDUCED THE RATE FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE OF THE TYPE INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER FROM .03 CENTS TO .01 1/2 CWT. PER DAY, EXCLUDED SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS AS DAYS FOR WHICH STORAGE WOULD BE CHARGED, AND LIMITED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT CHARGED TO 20 PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE OF THE ITEMS FOR WHICH STORAGE CHARGES WERE ASSESSED.
IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT AFTER A CAREFUL REVIEW OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS CONTRACT IT IS CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AND EQUITABLE TO REMIT THE STORAGE CHARGES ASSESSED AGAINST MILES METAL CORPORATION TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY EXCEED THOSE WHICH WOULD NOW BE CHARGED UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. RECOMPUTATION OF THE CHARGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT CONTRACT PROVISIONS WOULD RESULT IN AN ASSESSMENT OF $11,046.19. PURSUANT TO 41 U.S.C. 256A RECOMMENDATION IS MADE THAT WE REMIT $14,225.81 TO MILES METAL CORPORATION.
WE HAVE REVIEWED THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AND DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1964, AND AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT $14,225.81 OF THE STORAGE CHARGES ASSESSED MAY BE REMITTED.
WE NOTE FROM THE ENCLOSURES WITH THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1964, THAT MILES METAL CORPORATION PAID ACCRUED STORAGE CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,758 ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1961, OF WHICH AMOUNT $486 WAS REFUNDED TO THE COMPANY AS A RESULT OF THE ACTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS DATED MARCH 26, 1964, LEAVING A NET PAID BALANCE OF $25,272.00.
ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 (A) OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1960, 64 STAT. 578, 591 (41 U.S.C. 256A), AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION, REMISSION OF $14,225.81 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IS APPROVED. REFUND OF THIS AMOUNT MAY BE MADE TO MILES METAL CORPORATION IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.