[Protest of UNICOR Contract Award for Manufacturing of Leather Work Gloves]
Highlights
A firm protested a UNICOR contract award for leather to be used in manufacturing work gloves, contending that UNICOR (1) should have rejected the awardee's bid as materially unbalanced and (2) misevaluated its past performance. GAO held that (1) in evaluating the protester's past performance, UNICOR reasonably disregarded the protester's non-leather supply contracts and (2) since the solicitation specified that price was the least important award factor, the concept of unbalancing did not apply to the awardee's bid. Accordingly, the protest was denied.
B-231828, Sep 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD 218
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Moot allegation - GAO review DIGEST: Protest that requirement for site visit is unduly restrictive is dismissed as academic where bids were opened after the protest was filed, and the protester's bid, based on no site visit, was the eighth lowest received; there thus is no reason to believe protester would move into line for award even if the protest were sustained and the requirement eliminated.
Sylvan Service Corporation:
Sylvan Service Corporation protests the requirement for a mandatory site visit prior to submission of a bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTFA1408-B-32393, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), for custodial services at the Air Route Traffic Control Center in Oberlin, Ohio. We dismiss the protest.
The IFB was issued on May 20, 1988. On June 16, the FAA issued an amendment requiring a site visit prior to submitting a bid, and a certification that the visit was made, to be verified by an FAA representative. On June 29, Sylvan filed a protest with our Office, contending that the site visit requirement is unnecessary because the IFB provides sufficient information upon which to submit a competent bid, and therefore is unduly restrictive. Bid opening occurred as scheduled on July 12, and of eight bids received, Sylvan's was eighth low. Sylvan did not comply with the site visit requirement.
In view of Sylvan's standing as the eighth low bidder, we will not consider the merits of the protest. Even were the protest sustained and the site visit requirement eliminated, there is no reason to believe that Sylvan would move into position to receive the award, since Sylvan's high bid already was based on no site visit. Under these circumstances, the protest is academic and no purpose would be served by our review of the matter. M. Pashelinsky & Sons, Inc., B-214973, Aug. 29, 1984, 84-2 CPD Para. 237.
The protest is dismissed.