B-157184, OCT. 5, 1965

B-157184: Oct 5, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

TO SCULLY-WALTON: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 4. WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION B-157180. THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS FORMING THE BASIS OF YOUR PROTEST UNDER THE SUBJECT INVITATION WILL BE CONSIDERED BELOW IN THE ORDER PRESENTED. WAS FURNISHED SUBSEQUENT TO AWARD AS ALLEGED. YOUR ALLEGATION THAT REILLY'S BUSINESS LOCATION IS OVER 24 MILES FROM THE INSTALLATIONS SERVED UNDER THE CONTRACT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE EITHER FACTUAL OR RELEVANT. AS YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE EARLIER DECISION. ALTHOUGH THE ADDRESS STATED ON THE BID IS APPARENTLY AN ANSWERING SERVICE. INVESTIGATION BY GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL CONFIRMED THE CONTRACTOR'S STATEMENT THAT AMBULANCES ARE DISPATCHED FROM THIS POINT.

B-157184, OCT. 5, 1965

TO SCULLY-WALTON:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 4, 1965, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO REILLY'S WEST SUBURBAN AMBULANCE AND OXYGEN SERVICE BY THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION WEST SIDE HOSPITAL, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 66-11. YOU ALSO PROTESTED THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT BY THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, HINES, ILLINOIS, UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 66-17, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION B-157180, SEPTEMBER 15, 1965, TO YOU. BOTH INVITATIONS CALLED FOR BIDS ON FURNISHING AMBULANCE SERVICES FOR THE RESPECTIVE HOSPITALS FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1965, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1966. THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS FORMING THE BASIS OF YOUR PROTEST UNDER THE SUBJECT INVITATION WILL BE CONSIDERED BELOW IN THE ORDER PRESENTED.

ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF SATISFACTORY INSURANCE COVERAGE, REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED BY THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER UNDER THIS INVITATION AS WELL AS UNDER IFB 66-17, WAS FURNISHED SUBSEQUENT TO AWARD AS ALLEGED, WE DO NOT VIEW THIS AS REQUIRING OUR OFFICE TO OBJECT TO THE AWARD FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR EARLIER DECISION.

YOUR ALLEGATION THAT REILLY'S BUSINESS LOCATION IS OVER 24 MILES FROM THE INSTALLATIONS SERVED UNDER THE CONTRACT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE EITHER FACTUAL OR RELEVANT. AS YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE EARLIER DECISION, ALTHOUGH THE ADDRESS STATED ON THE BID IS APPARENTLY AN ANSWERING SERVICE, INVESTIGATION BY GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL CONFIRMED THE CONTRACTOR'S STATEMENT THAT AMBULANCES ARE DISPATCHED FROM THIS POINT. ASIDE FROM THESE FACTS, SINCE THE INVITATION DID NOT DESIGNATE WHERE THE VEHICLES MUST BE LOCATED WE FAIL TO PERCEIVE ANY REASON WHY THEY SHOULD BE LOCATED AT ANY PARTICULAR PLACE, AS IT IS REILLY'S CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO TIMELY RESPOND TO CALLS REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION FROM WHICH AMBULANCES ARE DISPATCHED.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT SEVERAL OF THE BIDS WERE NONRESPONSIVE TO THE FLAT RATE LIMITATIONS ON TRIPS TO THE HINES AND DOWNEY VA HOSPITALS, WE QUOTE THE FOLLOWING FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT, WHICH WOULD APPEAR TO DISPOSE OF THIS CONTENTION INSOFAR AS REILLY'S BID IS CONCERNED:

"WE DID, HOWEVER, MAKE A REVIEW OF ALL BIDS RECEIVED AND IN OUR LETTER OF JUNE 30, 1965, ADVISED SCULLY-WALTON THAT OUR REVIEW REVEALED THAT THE BID OF REILLY'S WEST SUBURBAN AMBULANCE WAS THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT. (SEE EXHIBIT E) OUR REVIEW INCLUDED DETERMINING THE MILEAGE FROM CHICAGO'S WESTERN BOUNDARY (AUSTIN BLVD.) TO VA HINES HOSPITAL (APPROXIMATELY 5 1/2 MILES) AND THE MILEAGE FROM CHICAGO'S NORTHERN BOUNDARY (HOWARD STREET) TO VA HOSPITAL, DOWNEY WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 30 MILES. APPLYING THE ABOVE, REILLY'S WEST SUBURBAN AMBULANCE'S FLATE RATE TO VA HOSPITAL, HINES WOULD BE $12.10 AND HIS FLAT RATE TO VA HOSPITAL, DOWNEY WOULD BE $17.00, WHEREAS UNDER ITEM 3, HE BID A FLAT RATE OF $12.00 TO VA HOSPITAL, HINES AND A FLAT RATE OF $15.00 TO VA HOSPITAL, DOWNEY, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY IN OUR FAVOR.'

CONCERNING YOUR CONTENTIONS THAT REILLY DOES NOT OWN SUFFICIENT EQUIPMENT AND THAT NO INSPECTION OF REILLY'S EQUIPMENT WAS MADE BY THE VA, IT IS REPORTED THAT ON JUNE 30, 1965, BEFORE AWARD, FOUR AMBULANCES WERE PRESENTED FOR INSPECTION BY THE CONTRACTOR AS VEHICLES BELONGING TO IT AND REPRESENTED AS THOSE TO BE USED IN PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. ALL VEHICLES WERE FOUND TO BE IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION AND PROPERLY EQUIPPED.

AS TO YOUR ALLEGATIONS THAT PRIOR PERFORMANCE BY REILLY WAS UNSATISFACTORY, IT IS REPORTED THAT PERFORMANCE UNDER CONTRACTS WITH HINES HOSPITAL AND WEST SIDE HOSPITAL IN FISCAL YEARS 1964 AND 1965, RESPECTIVELY, WAS VERY SATISFACTORY WITH NO COMPLAINTS FROM ANY SOURCES. IT IS ALSO REPORTED THAT NO IRREGULARITY WITH RESPECT TO LICENSE PLATES OR INSURANCE DEVELOPED DURING PERFORMANCE OF THESE CONTRACTS, AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE CONTRACTOR COMPLIED WITH THE STATE LAWS APPLICABLE THERETO.

ACCORDINGLY, WE SEE NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH WE MAY DISTURB THE CONTRACT, AND YOUR PROTEST IS THEREFORE DENIED.