B-223496.2, JUL 28, 1986, 86-2 CPD 123

B-223496.2: Jul 28, 1986

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS - ERROR OF FACT OR LAW - NOT ESTABLISHED DIGEST: PROTEST IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SET FORTH A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL GROUNDS ON WHICH IT IS BASED WHERE THE PROTESTER. WHOSE BID WAS REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE. MERELY STATES THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE CONTRACT AWARD BECAUSE IT SUBMITTED THE LOW RESPONSIVE BID BUT. SUGGESTS NO REASON WHY THE BID SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED. ANCHOR HAD ALLEGED THAT IT WAS THE LOW RESPONSIVE BIDDER AND PROTESTED A CONTRACT AWARD TO ANY OTHER FIRM. DISMISSED THE PROTEST AS PREMATURE BECAUSE IT APPEARED THAT ANCHOR WAS MERELY ANTICIPATING THAT THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY WOULD ACT IMPROPERLY.

B-223496.2, JUL 28, 1986, 86-2 CPD 123

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS - ERROR OF FACT OR LAW - NOT ESTABLISHED DIGEST: PROTEST IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SET FORTH A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL GROUNDS ON WHICH IT IS BASED WHERE THE PROTESTER, WHOSE BID WAS REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE, MERELY STATES THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE CONTRACT AWARD BECAUSE IT SUBMITTED THE LOW RESPONSIVE BID BUT, KNOWING OF THE BIDDING DEFICIENCIES THAT CAUSED THE REJECTION, SUGGESTS NO REASON WHY THE BID SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED.

ANCHOR APPLIANCE-- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

ANCHOR APPLIANCE (ANCHOR) REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR JUNE 27, 1986, DISMISSAL OF ITS PROTEST UNDER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DAKF70-86-B-0052. ANCHOR HAD ALLEGED THAT IT WAS THE LOW RESPONSIVE BIDDER AND PROTESTED A CONTRACT AWARD TO ANY OTHER FIRM. DISMISSED THE PROTEST AS PREMATURE BECAUSE IT APPEARED THAT ANCHOR WAS MERELY ANTICIPATING THAT THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY WOULD ACT IMPROPERLY. ANCHOR NOW STATES THAT AT THE TIME IT SUBMITTED ITS PROTEST, IT HAD ALREADY BEEN INFORMED BY THE ARMY THAT THE CONTRACT WAS GOING TO BE AWARDED TO ANOTHER BIDDER. ANCHOR THUS ASSERTS THAT ITS PROTEST AGAINST THE PROPOSED AWARD TO ANOTHER BIDDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

NOTWITHSTANDING ANCHOR'S ASSERTION, WE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE PROTEST. UNDER OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.1(C)(4) (1986), A PROTEST MUST INCLUDE "A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL GROUNDS OF PROTEST INCLUDING COPIES OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS." THIS REGULATION CONTEMPLATES A STATEMENT SUFFICIENT TO APPRISE THE PROCURING AGENCY OF THE SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PROCUREMENT TO WHICH THE PROTESTER OBJECTS, AND THE REASON FOR THE OBJECTION, RATHER THAN A GENERAL EXPRESSION OF DISSATISFACTION ABOUT NOT RECEIVING AN AWARD. SEE GTT INDUSTRIES, INC., B-220824, NOV. 5, 1985, 85-2 CPD PARA. 527.

IN REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION, ANCHOR, IN ADDITION TO CONTESTING OUR REASON FOR DISMISSING THE PROTEST AS PREMATURE, STATES ONLY THAT IT, INSTEAD OF THE AWARDEE, IS ENTITLED TO THE CONTRACT BECAUSE IT SUBMITTED THE LOW RESPONSIVE BID. THE ARMY HAS INFORMED OUR OFFICE THAT IT ADVISED ANCHOR ON JUNE 20, 1985, THAT ITS BID WAS REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE THE FIRM DID NOT INCLUDE PRICES AS REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION FOR CERTAIN OF THE LISTED CONTRACT EFFORTS AND PRICED OTHERS IN A MANNER THE AGENCY THOUGHT AMBIGUOUS. NEITHER IN ITS INITIAL PROTEST NOR IN THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST DOES ANCHOR SUGGEST ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE BIDDING DEFICIENCIES OR ANY REASON WHY THE REJECTION WAS IMPROPER. THEREFORE FIND THAT ANCHOR HAS NOT SUPPORTED ITS PROTEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE-STATED STANDARD. SEE DATAMETRICS CORP., B-219617, AUG. 1, 1985, 85-2 CPD PARA. 122.

OUR DISMISSAL OF ANCHOR'S PROTEST IS AFFIRMED.