B-230597, May 6, 1988, 88-1 CPD 443

B-230597: May 6, 1988

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

Protest that bid should have been rejected because bidder did not complete the place of performance clause is denied. The General Accounting Office will not review an affirmative determination in that regard in the absence of a showing of possible fraud or bad faith or the failure to apply definitive responsibility criteria. The IFB was issued on a brand name or equal basis and specified Safety Storage. Are affiliates. We therefore consider this issue abandoned and will not consider it on the merits. Cam next protests that Feldman named a facility other than its own at which it will perform the contract but did not provide the address of the facility or the name and address of the facility's owner and operator.

B-230597, May 6, 1988, 88-1 CPD 443

PROCUREMENT - Contractor Qualification - Responsibility - Information - Submission time periods DIGEST: 1. Protest that bid should have been rejected because bidder did not complete the place of performance clause is denied, because the clause generally concerns bidder responsibility, so that the missing information may be supplied up to the time of contract award. PROCUREMENT - Contractor Qualification - Responsibility - Contracting officer findings - Affirmative determination - GAO review PROCUREMENT - Contractor Qualification - Responsibility criteria - Performance capabilities 2. Whether a bidder can perform at its proposed facility concerns the firm's responsibility, and the General Accounting Office will not review an affirmative determination in that regard in the absence of a showing of possible fraud or bad faith or the failure to apply definitive responsibility criteria.

Cam Industries:

Cam Industries protests the award of a contract to the Charles S. Feldman Co. under National Guard Bureau invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAHAI9-88-B- 0002, issued for pre-engineered and pre-assembled metal hazardous materials storage facilities.

We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.

The IFB was issued on a brand name or equal basis and specified Safety Storage, Inc., as the brand name manufacturer. The IFB contained a standard clause requiring a bidder to list the address of anv intended place of performance other than the bidder's own address, and to provide the name and address of the owner and operator of such facility. The IFB also required bidders to give the names and addresses of affiliates, if any.

In its protest, Caminitially argued that Feldman and Safety Storage, the third low bidder and the specified brand name manufacturer, are affiliates, and that they engaged in multiple bidding. The Bureau specifically denied this allegation in its protest report and Cam, in its reply, did not rebut the Bureau's denial. We therefore consider this issue abandoned and will not consider it on the merits. Spectrum Analysis & Frequency Engineering, Inc., B-222554, Aug. 1, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 136.

Cam next protests that Feldman named a facility other than its own at which it will perform the contract but did not provide the address of the facility or the name and address of the facility's owner and operator. The requirement that a bidder complete the place of performance clause, however, generally is informational only and relates to bidder responsibility, so that missing information can be supplied up to the time of award. The W.H. Smith Hardware Co., B-221878, Mar. 21, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 284. Since the record shows that Feldman did supply the missing information after bid opening, Cam's point provides no basis to find that Feldman's bid was improperly accepted.

Finally, in its reply to the agency report, Cam questions whether the equipment being procured ever has been produced at the facility where Feldman intends to perform the contract. This allegation concerns whether Feldman has the ability to meet its obligations under the contract, that is, whether Feldman is a responsible firm. Before awarding a contract, the contracting officer must determine that the bidder is responsible. Our Office does not review an affirmative determination of responsibility absent a showing that the contracting officer may have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation have not been met. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(5) (1988). Neither exception is involved here.

The protest is denied in part and dismissed in part.