B-151552, JUL. 22, 1964
Highlights
QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROPOSED CONTRACTOR ARE FOR DETERMINATION PRIMARILY BY THE PROCURING AGENCY INVOLVED AND. IT IS A RULE OF LONG STANDING OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT. THOSE FACTS WILL BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT WHERE THEY CONFLICT WITH STATEMENTS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY A PROTESTANT. THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY YOU ARE MERELY SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS WHICH WOULD NOT JUSTIFY OUR OFFICE QUESTIONING THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WILL NOT BE DISTURBED. WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION WHETHER YOU ARE A REGULAR DEALER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WALSH-HEALEY PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT. WE ADVISED YOU IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISION THAT THIS IS A DETERMINATION TO BE MADE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.
B-151552, JUL. 22, 1964
TO MR. HYMAN HURWITZ:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 13, 1964, REQUESTING FURTHER REVIEW OF OUR DECISION DATED APRIL 30, 1964, B-151552, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR PROTEST OF THE AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. N140 (383) 75237B TO THE COTTAGE LOOMS CORPORATION.
AS WE INDICATED TO YOU IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 30, 1964, QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROPOSED CONTRACTOR ARE FOR DETERMINATION PRIMARILY BY THE PROCURING AGENCY INVOLVED AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH OR THE LACK OF ANY REASONABLE BASIS FOR A PARTICULAR FINDING, THERE WOULD BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR OBJECTION BY OUR OFFICE TO SUCH DETERMINATION.
THE ALLEGATIONS IN YOUR LETTER OF MAY 13, 1964, APPEAR TO BE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. IT IS A RULE OF LONG STANDING OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF FACTS AS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED, THOSE FACTS WILL BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT WHERE THEY CONFLICT WITH STATEMENTS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY A PROTESTANT. THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY YOU ARE MERELY SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS WHICH WOULD NOT JUSTIFY OUR OFFICE QUESTIONING THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.
IN THIS CASE, WE FEEL THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS CONSTITUTED A BONA FIDE DETERMINATION AND, THEREFORE, THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WILL NOT BE DISTURBED.
WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION WHETHER YOU ARE A REGULAR DEALER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WALSH-HEALEY PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT, WE ADVISED YOU IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISION THAT THIS IS A DETERMINATION TO BE MADE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR. NO AUTHORITY IS VESTED IN THIS OFFICE TO REVIEW THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT YOU FORFEITED YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL WHEN YOU FAILED TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR AND PUBLIC CONTRACTS DIVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THERE HAS BEEN PRESENTED NO BASIS WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A DETERMINATION BY US THAT THE AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. N140 (383) 75237B TO THE COTTAGE LOOMS CORPORATION WAS LEGALLY IMPROPER.