B-179961, MAR 8, 1974

B-179961, MAR 8, 1974

DECISION NOT TO CONSIDER PROTEST AGAINST ABSENCE OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES FROM EVALUATION METHOD IS SUSTAINED, SINCE EVALUATION PROCEDURE WAS IN INVITATION FOR BIDS AND WAS NOT PROTESTED UNTIL AFTER BID OPENING AND GSA HAS ADVISED THAT ESTIMATES WILL BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.

TO ANDREW WILSON COMPANY:

THE ANDREW WILSON COMPANY HAS REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION B 179961, DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1973, WHICH CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANY'S PROTEST WAS UNTIMELY RAISED AND THEREFORE NOT FOR CONSIDERATION BY GAO.

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PROTEST SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. IT IS STATED THAT GAO DID NOT OBTAIN A WRITTEN REPORT FROM GSA AND PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL AND ORAL PRESENTATION; NO CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE EXCESSIVE COST THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE PROTESTED AWARD; OFFICIALS OF THE FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE ADMITTED THAT THE EVALUATION IS UNUSUAL AND NO REASON WAS GIVEN AS TO WHY IT WAS USED; NOTHING REQUIRES GSA TO REMEDY THE MANNER OF AWARD IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS; AND THAT GAO SHOULD TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THIS KIND OF SITUATION WHERE IT COULD BE REPEATED IF NOT CORRECTED.

A WRITTEN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT WAS NOT OBTAINED AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENT ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT WAS NOT PROVIDED, BECAUSE ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PROTEST IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE PROTEST WAS UNTIMELY. FURTHER, GAO HAD BEEN ADVISED INFORMALLY BY GSA THAT THE EVALUATION METHOD WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE PROTEST WOULD NOT BE PRESENT IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS OF THE ITEMS INVOLVED. IN THAT REGARD, PARAGRAPH 20.2(B) OF THE INTERIM BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS PROVIDES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF AN UNTIMELY PROTEST WHEN IT RAISES ISSUES SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES OR PROCEDURES. IN 52 COMP. GEN. 20, 23 (1972), IT WAS STATED, "'ISSUES SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES OR PROCEDURES' REFERS NOT TO THE SUM OF MONEY INVOLVED, BUT TO THE PRESENCE OF A PRINCIPLE OF WIDESPREAD INTEREST." SINCE THE PROTEST WAS UNTIMELY AND SINCE DESPITE WHATEVER HAPPENED IN THE IMMEDIATE PROCUREMENT IT WAS APPARENT THAT GSA WAS GOING TO TAKE STEPS TO PRECLUDE A RECURRENCE OF THE SITUATION IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS DECIDED THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OR CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER.

ANDREW WILSON HAD BEEN ADVISED INFORMALLY BY A GAO REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE REASON GSA DID NOT INCLUDE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS FOR EVALUATION OF BIDS WAS THAT SUCH INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE INVITATION WAS ISSUED. ANDREW WILSON ALSO HAS REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT QUESTIONS THAT ADVICE, SINCE IT STATES THAT THERE WERE RECORDS AVAILABLE FROM A PRIOR CONTRACT WHICH WOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED THE QUANTITIES. HOWEVER, GSA HAS ADVISED THAT THE PRIOR CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR DELIVERY OF ENTIRE UNITS IN VARIOUS SIZES AND CONFIGURATIONS AND COULD NOT BE RELATED FOR PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE PROCUREMENT IN QUESTION WHICH PROVIDED ONLY FOR DELIVERY OF INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS.

IN ANY EVENT, SINCE THE EVALUATION METHOD WHICH WAS TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE SELECTION OF THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER WAS INCLUDED IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS AND WAS NOT PROTESTED UNTIL AFTER THE OPENING OF BIDS AND SINCE GSA HAD ADVISED THAT ESTIMATES WILL BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH INFORMATION, GAO IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO PURPOSE IN PURSUING THE MATTER FURTHER.

ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 23, 1973, IS SUSTAINED.