B-176845(2), DEC 26, 1972
Highlights
SECRETARY: ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY DENYING THE PROTEST OF KLEEN- RITE JANITORIAL SERVICE. KLEEN-RITE ALLEGED THAT ASHE COULD NOT SUCCESSFULY COMPLY WITH THE PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE BECAUSE ASHE WAS PRIMARILY A GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR AND ITS EXPERIENCE IN PERFORMING CUSTODIAL SERVICES CONTRACTS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE WAS VIRTUALLY NONEXISTENT. THAT ASHE WAS A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON THE BASIS THAT THE EMPLOYEES PRESENTLY EMPLOYED ON THE SITE ARE AVAILABLE TO ASHE. THAT THESE EMPLOYEES ARE EXPERIENCED. AWARD WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MADE TO ASHE. MAY HAVE PERFORMED A NUMBER OF GROUND MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS AT LANGLEY. BECAUSE OF THE OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE DETERMINATION THAT ASHE WAS A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE INSTANT PROCUREMENT.
B-176845(2), DEC 26, 1972
(NO 2 LINE MATERIAL) (NO 3 LINE MATERIAL)
TO MR. SECRETARY:
ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY DENYING THE PROTEST OF KLEEN- RITE JANITORIAL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, AGAINST AWARD TO C. G. ASHE ENTERPRISES (ASHE), UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DABB25-73-B 0001, ISSUED BY FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, ON JULY 21, 1972.
KLEEN-RITE ALLEGED THAT ASHE COULD NOT SUCCESSFULY COMPLY WITH THE PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE BECAUSE ASHE WAS PRIMARILY A GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR AND ITS EXPERIENCE IN PERFORMING CUSTODIAL SERVICES CONTRACTS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE WAS VIRTUALLY NONEXISTENT. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED, HOWEVER, THAT ASHE WAS A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON THE BASIS THAT THE EMPLOYEES PRESENTLY EMPLOYED ON THE SITE ARE AVAILABLE TO ASHE; THAT THESE EMPLOYEES ARE EXPERIENCED; THAT ASHE HAS ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES ON HAND TO PERFORM AS REQUIRED; AND THAT ASHE HAS PERFORMED IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER UNDER A SIMILAR CONTRACT AT LANGLEY AIR BASE. AWARD WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MADE TO ASHE.
IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT WHILE C. G. ASHE ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, MAY HAVE PERFORMED A NUMBER OF GROUND MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS AT LANGLEY, THE CONTRACTOR HAS PERFORMED ONLY ONE CUSTODIAL CONTRACT AT THAT INSTALLATION APPROXIMATING LESS THAN ONE MAN-YEAR OF EFFORT VALUED AT $4,200. WE DO NOT CONSIDER SUCH A CONTRACT TO BE SIMILAR IN SCOPE TO THE INSTANT CONTRACT. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE DETERMINATION THAT ASHE WAS A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE INSTANT PROCUREMENT, WE COULD NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION WAS ARBITRARY OR THAT THE AWARD WAS IMPROPER.