B-187397(2), FEB 4, 1977

B-187397(2): Feb 4, 1977

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PRECIS - UNAVAILABLE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION B-187397(1) OF TODAY. THE GRAVAMEN OF THE PROTEST WAS THE ALLEGATION THAT THE SARC PROPOSAL WAS NOT PROPERLY EVALUATED. THE LETTER REPORT PROVIDED WAS DEFICIENT IN THAT IT DID NOT CONTAIN ANY CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS ON THE EVALUATION PROCESS. THE ONLY DOCUMENT SUBMITTED WAS A COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. WERE NOT SUBMITTED. HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE DOCUMENTS WOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNLESS A LETTER WAS SENT REQUESTING THE DOCUMENTS OR A GAO REPRESENTATIVE CAME IN PERSON TO OBTAIN COPIES. SUCH ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. AMEND. 68) INTENDS THAT DOCUMENTS OF THE NATURE STATED ABOVE WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE PROTEST FILE.

B-187397(2), FEB 4, 1977

PRECIS - UNAVAILABLE

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION:

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION B-187397(1) OF TODAY, FEB 14, 1977, IN THE MATTER OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH CORPORATION (SARC).

BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1976, WE REQUESTED A DOCUMENTED REPORT RESPONSIVE TO THE PROTEST. ON DECEMBER 3, 1976, WE RECEIVED YOUR AGENCY REPORT. THE GRAVAMEN OF THE PROTEST WAS THE ALLEGATION THAT THE SARC PROPOSAL WAS NOT PROPERLY EVALUATED. THE LETTER REPORT PROVIDED WAS DEFICIENT IN THAT IT DID NOT CONTAIN ANY CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS ON THE EVALUATION PROCESS. THE ONLY DOCUMENT SUBMITTED WAS A COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. THE ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS THE PROTESTER'S PROPOSAL, THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL, EVALUATION SCORE SHEETS AND REPORT OF THE EVALUATION TEAM, WERE NOT SUBMITTED. WHEN THE ATTORNEY ASSIGNED THE CASE CALLED THE CHIEF, PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT DIVISION, CONCERNING THE DEFICIENCY, HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE DOCUMENTS WOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNLESS A LETTER WAS SENT REQUESTING THE DOCUMENTS OR A GAO REPRESENTATIVE CAME IN PERSON TO OBTAIN COPIES. IN THE INTEREST OF EXPEDITING THE CASE, THE ATTORNEY CHOSE TO PICK UP THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS.

HOWEVER, SUCH ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. THE BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. 20.3(C) (1976), CONTEMPLATE THE FURNISHING OF A REPORT ON THE PROTEST "IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS." THE LETTER FROM OUR OFFICE REQUESTING THE REPORT STATED IT SHOULD BE "DOCUMENTED." FURTHER, FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS (FPR) SEC. 1-2.407-8(A)(2) (1964 ED. AMEND. 68) INTENDS THAT DOCUMENTS OF THE NATURE STATED ABOVE WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE PROTEST FILE. IN FACT, THE CHIEF, PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT DIVISION, IN THE MEMORANDUM OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1976, DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT ON THE PROTEST STATED THAT PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF THE REPORT "MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FPR 1-2.407-8." THEREFORE, IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD APPRECIATE RECEIVING ALL PERTINENT DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE PROTEST WITH THE AGENCY REPORT. WHEN THE REPORT IS DEFICIENT IN THAT REGARD, WE EXPECT IN VIEW OF THE REGULATIONS THAT THE DEFICIENCY WILL BE CURED PROMPTLY BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS UPON AN ORAL REQUEST FOR THEM AND WITHOUT A FORMAL WRITTEN REQUEST OR PERSONAL VISIT BY A GAO REPRESENTATIVE TO OBTAIN THEM.