B-184371, DEC 9, 1975

B-184371: Dec 9, 1975

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

(2) EVIDENCE OF NEW YORK MOTOR VEHICLE TAX STAMP ALSO PURSUANT TO CODE WERE PREREQUISITES TO AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND ARE DEFINITIVE CRITERIA OF RESPONSIBILITY ALLOWING GAO REVIEW. 2. IN CONDUCTING REVIEW INTO QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY GAO DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR CONTRACTING OFFICER'S UNLESS CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION THAT BIDDER HAD NOT MET OBJECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA SET OUT IN SOLICITATION IS WITHOUT REASONABLE BASIS. 3. CONTRACTING OFFICER COULD REASONABLY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT LETTER CONSTITUTED EVIDENCE OF LICENSING FOR EACH VEHICLE. ANOTHER LETTER RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO AWARD INDICATING THAT LICENSES WERE ALSO CONDITIONAL ON VEHICLES PASSING INSPECTION.

B-184371, DEC 9, 1975

1. IFB'S SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT BIDDERS FOR PROVISION OF PRIVATE CAR SERVICES PRODUCE (1) EVIDENCE OF VEHICLE LICENSING BY NEW YORK CITY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK CITY CODE, AND (2) EVIDENCE OF NEW YORK MOTOR VEHICLE TAX STAMP ALSO PURSUANT TO CODE WERE PREREQUISITES TO AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND ARE DEFINITIVE CRITERIA OF RESPONSIBILITY ALLOWING GAO REVIEW. 2. IN CONDUCTING REVIEW INTO QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY GAO DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR CONTRACTING OFFICER'S UNLESS CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION THAT BIDDER HAD NOT MET OBJECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA SET OUT IN SOLICITATION IS WITHOUT REASONABLE BASIS. 3. WHERE IFB FOR PRIVATE CAR SERVICES REQUIRED LOCAL VEHICLE LICENSE AND LETTER FROM LOCAL LICENSING COMMISSION STATED THAT BIDDER HAD BEEN CONDITIONALLY LICENSED AND FURTHER LED AGENCY TO BELIEVE THAT ONLY FACTOR APPARENTLY REMAINING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED INVOLVED BACKGROUND CHECK OF BIDDER'S DRIVERS, CONTRACTING OFFICER COULD REASONABLY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT LETTER CONSTITUTED EVIDENCE OF LICENSING FOR EACH VEHICLE. ANOTHER LETTER RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO AWARD INDICATING THAT LICENSES WERE ALSO CONDITIONAL ON VEHICLES PASSING INSPECTION, WHICH ONLY 4 OF 22 DID, CAN HAVE NO RETROACTIVE IMPACT ON DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY - INFORMATION ONLY RELEVANT FOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. 4. IFB CLAUSE WHICH STATED THAT PROPOSALS WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY FROM BIDDERS WHICH ARE "REGULARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE BUSINESS CALLED FOR AND WHO ARE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE AND HAVE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL TO FURNISH SERVICE IN THE VOLUME REQUIRED FOR ALL THE ITEMS UNDER THIS CONTRACT" MEANS THAT ONLY BIDS FROM ONGOING CONCERNS WHICH HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE IN PROVIDING SERVICES SUCH AS THOSE REQUIRED AND HAVE NECESSARY RESOURCES WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR AWARD. THUS, EVEN A BIDDER'S TOTAL LACK OF PAST COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LICENSING ORDINANCES WOULD NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE BASIS TO REJECT BIDDER WHICH HAD OTHERWISE PERFORMED REQUIRED SERVICES IN SATISFACTORY MANNER.

PAMMAR PRIVATE CAB CORP.:

INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. 5244-26-76 WAS ISSUED ON MAY 15, 1975, BY THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION (VA) HOSPITAL OF NEW YORK CITY, SEEKING BIDS FOR THE PROVISION OF PRIVATE TAXICAB SERVICES ON A REQUIREMENTS BASIS DURING THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1975, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1976. GROUP I REFERRED TO SUCH SERVICES AS THEY RELATED TO THE VA HOSPITAL ITSELF AND GROUP II CONCERNED THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF PATIENTS AT THE OUT-PATIENT CLINIC OF THE VA REGIONAL OFFICE.

THE IFB CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

"LICENSE:THE BIDDER SHALL BE LICENSED BY EITHER THE CITY OR STATE AUTHORITY IN THOSE LOCALITIES WHERE SUCH LICENSES ARE REQUIRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT. EVIDENCE OF LICENSING FOR EACH VEHICLE BY THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 65 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND EVIDENCE OF NEW YORK MOTOR VEHICLE TAX STAMP FOR EACH VEHICLE PROPOSED TO BE UTILIZED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONTRACT PURSUANT TO K46-2.0 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK MUST BE FURNISHED PRIOR TO AWARD OF CONTRACT.

"QUALIFICATIONS: A. PROPOSALS WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY FROM BIDDERS WHO ARE REGULARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE BUSINESS CALLED FOR AND WHO ARE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE AND HAVE THE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL TO FURNISH SERVICE IN THE VOLUME REQUIRED FOR ALL THE ITEMS UNDER THIS CONTRACT. SUCCESSFUL BIDDER SHALL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL, STATE OR CITY CODES REGARDING OPERATIONS OF THIS TYPE OF SERVICE."

THIRTEEN FIRMS WERE SOLICITED AND EIGHT BIDS WERE RECEIVED. THE ABSTRACT OF BIDS IN PERTINENT PART INDICATES THE FOLLOWING PRICES:

GROUP I

AB&B CARRIAGE SERVICE INC. (AB&B) $64,720

P&I TRANSPORTATION INC. (P&I) 66,810

LOOP CAR SERVICE LTD. (LOOP) 69,605

BLVD. T&B MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 70,721

PAMMAR 72,025

GROUP II

AB&B $102,900.00

P&I 110,050.00

ALWAYS AVAILABLE PRIVATE

CAR SERVICE 113,562.50

SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECEIPT OF BIDS A PREAWARD SURVEY TEAM WAS APPOINTED AND UPON CONSIDERATION OF ITS FINDINGS, AB&B AND P&I WERE FOUND NOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE SINCE "*** THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF HAVING NECESSARY ORGANIZATION, EXPERIENCE, OPERATIONAL CONTROLS, EQUIPMENT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION." BOTH LOOP AND ALWAYS AVAILABLE CAR SERVICE WERE FOUND RESPONSIBLE AND RESPECTIVE AWARDS WERE MADE TO THOSE FIRMS ON JUNE 27, 1975.

PAMMAR THEREAFTER PROTESTED THE AWARD TO LOOP ON THE FOLLOWING BASES: (1) THE "CONDITIONAL LICENSES" RECEIVED BY LOOP FROM THE CITY OF NEW YORK ON JUNE 27, 1975, WERE "ISSUED IN ERROR"; (2) IN ANY EVENT, AS OF THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JUNE 30, 1975, LOOP HAD ONLY FOUR VEHICLES LICENSED; AND (3) SINCE THE BIDDING ENTITY KNOWN AS LOOP CAR SERVICE HAD DURING THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1975, PERFORMED ANOTHER VA CONTRACT UNDER THE NAME OF CO-OP CITY CAR SERVICE BUT HAD NOT SECURED THE NECESSARY LICENSES, THE AWARD TO LOOP RESULTED IN AN AWARD TO A BIDDER WHICH WAS NOT REGULARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE BUSINESS SINCE ITS PRIOR ACTIVITY WAS UNLAWFUL.

IN 53 COMP. GEN. 51 (1973) THIS OFFICE RECOGNIZED A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SITUATIONS WHERE THE SOLICITATION CONTAINED ONLY A GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT CONTRACTORS HAVE "NECESSARY STATE & LOCAL LICENSES" AND THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SOLICITATION REQUIRED THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER HOLD A SPECIFIED STATE OR LOCAL LICENSE. SEE ALSO CITY AMBULANCE COMPANY, INC., B-184471, OCTOBER 9, 1975; VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, B-184384, JULY 29, 1975, 75-2 CPD 63. WE SPECIFICALLY STATED IN 53 COMP. GEN., SUPRA, THAT:

"*** WHERE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS AWARE OF AND FAMILIAR WITH LOCAL REQUIREMENTS AND INCORPORATES THOSE REQUIREMENTS INTO A SOLICITATION, IT MAY WELL BE DECIDED THAT POSSESSION BY THE BIDDER OF THE PARTICULAR LICENSE IS A PREREQUISITE FOR AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY. ***"

ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE THE SOLICITATION MERELY CONTAINS A GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT "NECESSARY" STATE AND LOCAL LICENSES BE OBTAINED, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE "*** CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THOSE STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING THAT DETERMINATION IS CORRECTLY PLACED WITH THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR." 53 COMP. GEN., SUPRA, AT 53.

UNDER THESE CRITERIA, THE REQUIREMENTS STATED IN CLAUSE 17 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE SOLICITATION, QUOTED ABOVE, REQUIRING BIDDERS TO FURNISH, PRIOR TO AWARD: (1) EVIDENCE OF VEHICLE LICENSING BY THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 65 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND (2) EVIDENCE OF A NEW YORK MOTOR VEHICLE TAX STAMP IN ACCORDANCE WITH K46-2.0 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK FOR EACH VEHICLE PROPOSED FOR USE WERE CLEARLY PREREQUISITES TO AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY. SEE GENERALLY CITY AMBULANCE, INC., SUPRA. MOREOVER, SINCE THERE ARE DEFINITIVE CRITERIA OF RESPONSIBILITY, OUR GENERAL POLICY OF NOT REVIEWING AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY ABSENT FRAUD BY CONTRACTING OFFICIALS IS NOT FOR APPLICATION. YARDNEY ELECTRIC CORPORATION, 54 COMP. GEN. 509 (1974), 74-2 CPD 376.

IN CONDUCTING ANY SUCH REVIEW INTO DETERMINATIONS INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY, IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF OUR OFFICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR HAS OR HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A CAPABILITY TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT. RATHER, OUR FUNCTION IS TO REVIEW THE RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION MAKING DETERMINATIONS AS TO THOSE REVIEWABLE ELEMENTS GOING TO THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY WAS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. SEE DATA TEST CORPORATION, 54 COMP. GEN. 499, (1974), 74-2 CPD 365, AFFIRMED 54 COMP. GEN. 715 (1975), 75-1 CPD 138. SEE GENERALLY ENVIRONMENTAL TECTONICS CORPORATION, B-183616, OCTOBER 31, 1975, 55 COMP. GEN. ; LEASCO INFORMATION PRODUCTS, INC., 53 COMP. GEN. 932 (1974), 74-1 CPD 314. ACCORDINGLY, THIS OFFICE DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER UNLESS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION THAT THE BIDDER HAD NOT MET THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING RESPONSIBILITY SET OUT IN THE SOLICITATION IS WITHOUT A REASONABLE BASIS. SEE DATA TEST CORPORATION, SUPRA.

WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED VEHICLE LICENSES, ON JUNE 27, 1975, PRIOR TO AWARD, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER RECEIVED A HAND CARRIED LETTER FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LICENSES OF THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION WHICH IN RELEVANT PART STATED:

"RE: KOOP CITY CORPORATION D/B/A LOOP CAR SERVICE LTD ***

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED CORPORATION HAS BEEN LICENSED BY THIS COMMISSION.

"THIS LICENSE IS CONDITIONED THAT UPON VERIFICATION FROM THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE OWNERS OF KOOP CITY DO NOT HAVE ANY SUCH CRIMINAL RECORD.

"THE LICENSE ISSUED APPLIES TO BASE STATION AS WELL AS THE (22) INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES LISTED BELOW: ***"

MOREOVER, WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PRIOR TO THIS TIME THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-OPERATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, IN ADVISING THE VA OF THE CITY'S PRIVATE CAR SERVICES LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, INDICATED -

"*** AS PART OF THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, WE PHYSICALLY INSPECT EACH AND EVERY VEHICLE LICENSED, AS WELL AS, UNDERTAKE A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION AS TO THE BACKGROUND OF EACH AND EVERY DRIVER LICENSED TO DRIVE SAID VEHICLES. ALSO, ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION ANNUALLY, THE VEHICLES ARE INSPECTED THROUGH A SOPHISTICATED COMPUTERIZED INSPECTION SYSTEM AT OUR LONG ISLAND CITY FACILITY. THE INSPECTION ASSURES THAT THE VEHICLE IS BOTH SAFE AND EMISSION FREE. IT SHOULD BE OF INTEREST TO YOU THAT WE ARE MANDATED TO DO SO THROUGH THE FEDERAL EPA STATUTES. THEREFORE, PASSENGERS OF LICENSED VEHICLES ARE ASSURED OF A SAFE, CLEAN RIDE."

THUS, AS OF THE TIME OF AWARD, SINCE THE ONLY FACTOR RELATING TO LICENSING APPARENTLY REMAINING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED INVOLVED A BACKGROUND CHECK ON THE DRIVERS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER COULD REASONABLY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT EACH AND EVERY VEHICLE LISTED IN THE JUNE 27 LETTER HAD ALREADY BEEN PHYSICALLY INSPECTED AND PASSED AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE LETTER CONSTITUTED EVIDENCE OF LICENSING FOR EACH VEHICLE BY THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2304, CHAPTER 65, ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR LICENSING OF VEHICLES." THE ONLY CONDITIONS STATED IN THE TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION'S JUNE 27 LETTER RELATED TO THE LICENSING OF DRIVERS (SECTION 2305 OF CHAPTER 65, ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK), AND THE IFB NOWHERE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED THAT ALL DRIVERS BE LICENSED BY THE COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH CLAUSE 2 OF THE IFB'S SPECIAL CONDITIONS, NOTED ABOVE, DID STATE A GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT ALL STATE AND CITY CODES REGARDING OPERATION OF THIS TYPE OF SERVICE BE MET AND NEW YORK CITY DID IN FACT REQUIRE A SPECIAL LICENSE FOR DRIVERS SUCH AS THOSE IN QUESTION. IN SUM, WE BELIEVE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS AS OF THE DATE OF AWARD TO CONCLUDE THAT LOOP HAD SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCE OF VEHICLE LICENSING SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY THE IFB AND WHICH WAS, THEREFORE, A PREREQUISITE TO AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY.

THE EVENTS WHICH TRANSPIRED AFTER AWARD, NAMELY THE JULY 1 LETTER TO VA FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LICENSES OF THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION WHICH INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE LICENSES ISSUED TO LOOP ON JUNE 27, 1975, WERE ISSUED ON THE CONDITION THAT LOOP COMPLY WITH INSPECTION STANDARDS AS OF THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JUNE 30 AND AS OF THAT TIME ONLY FOUR OF LOOP'S CARS HAD IN FACT PASSED INSPECTION, CAN HAVE NO RETROACTIVE IMPACT ON THE VA'S RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION FOR, BY DEFINITION, DETERMINATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ONLY INFORMATION AVAILABLE PRIOR TO AWARD, AND WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION IN THIS REGARD WAS REASONABLE. WHERE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE AFTER AWARD WHICH INDICATES THAT THE AWARDEE MAY HAVE DIFFICULTY OR BE UNABLE TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT, THIS INFORMATION IS RELEVANT ONLY FOR ITS USE TO THE AGENCY IN CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, I.E., ITS DETERMINATION AS TO WHATEVER ACTIONS ARE DEEMED NECESSARY TO INSURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVES THE GOODS OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNDER THE CONTRACT (INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF TERMINATING THE CONTRACT).

PAMMAR ARGUES ALSO THAT LOOP COULD NOT PROPERLY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS A BIDDER "REGULARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE BUSINESS" AS REQUIRED BY THE IFB SINCE IT ALLEGEDLY WAS NOT LICENSED BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER CONTRACTS WITH VA DURING FISCAL YEAR 1975 AND, THEREFORE, ITS ACTIVITIES DURING THAT PERIOD WERE UNLAWFUL. HOWEVER, EVEN IF LOOP'S ACTIVITIES IN ALLEGEDLY OPERATING AN UNLICENSED PRIVATE CAR COMPANY HAD IN THE PAST VIOLATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF NEW YORK CITY, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS FACT AUTOMATICALLY PRECLUDES IT FROM BEING CONSIDERED UNDER THE QUALIFICATIONS SECTION OF THIS IFB. ON THE CONTRARY, WE BELIEVE THAT THE OPERATIVE PHRASE: "PROPOSALS WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY FROM BIDDERS WHO ARE REGULARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE BUSINESS CALLED FOR AND WHO ARE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE AND HAVE THE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL TO FURNISH SERVICE IN THE VOLUME REQUIRED FOR ALL THE ITEMS UNDER THIS CONTRACT" MEANS THAT ONLY BIDS FROM ONGOING CONCERNS WHICH HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE IN PROVIDING SERVICES SUCH AS THOSE HERE REQUIRED AND HAVE THE RESOURCES BOTH FINANCIAL AND OTHERWISE WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR AWARD. SEE FRIEDEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 53 COMP. GEN. 767 (1974), 74-1 CPD 188. ANY CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SENTENCE SIMILAR TO THAT ADVOCATED BY PAMMAR WOULD PLACE UPON THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THE NECESSITY TO DETERMINE NOT ONLY WHETHER THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR HAD SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE AND A SATISFACTORY RECORD OF PAST PERFORMANCE, BUT WHETHER THAT PERFORMANCE HAD IN FACT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT VIOLATING THE ORDINANCES OR REGULATIONS OF THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THAT PERFORMANCE HAD OCCURRED. IN A DIFFERENT BUT ANALOGOUS CONTEXT WE STATED THAT:

"*** STATE AND MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS VARY INFINITELY IN THEIR DETAILS AND LEGAL EFFECT, AND THE VALIDITY OF A PARTICULAR STATE REQUIREMENT AS APPLIED TO THE ACTIVITIES OF A FEDERAL CONTRACTOR OFTEN CANNOT BE DETERMINED EXCEPT BY COURTS OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, THUS RENDERING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR CONTRACTING AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SUCH DETERMINATIONS WITH ANY ASSURANCE THAT THEY ARE CORRECT. ***" PAUL'S LINE, INCORPORATED, ET AL., B-179605, FEBRUARY 7, 1974, 74-1 CPD 57. DO NOT BELIEVE, THEREFORE, THAT THIS SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN WAS INTENDED BY THE INSTANT CLAUSE.

MOREOVER, IT IS ONLY THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE CLAUSE, WHICH SPEAKS OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER, THAT INDICATES THE GENERAL NEED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES REGARDING OPERATIONS OF THE TYPE IN QUESTION AND EVEN THEN ONLY PROSPECTIVELY. THUS, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT EVEN A TOTAL LACK OF PAST COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LICENSING ORDINANCES WOULD PROVIDE A REASONABLE BASIS TO REJECT A BIDDER WHICH HAD OTHERWISE PERFORMED THE REQUIRED SERVICES IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER.

FOR THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE, PAMMAR'S PROTEST IS DENIED.