B-240971.3, Jan 9, 1991, 90-2 CPD 23

B-240971.3: Jan 9, 1991

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration PROCUREMENT - Contractor Qualification - Responsibility - Contracting officer findings - Affirmative determination - GAO review DIGEST: Protestor's contention on request for reconsideration that the general standards of responsibility contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) are definitive responsibility criteria is erroneous. As the FAR contains general standards that apply to all procurements and are not the specific. ISI argued that the awardee was not a "responsible prospective contractor" due to its alleged inability to satisfy the general standards of responsibility contained in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 9.104.

B-240971.3, Jan 9, 1991, 90-2 CPD 23

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration PROCUREMENT - Contractor Qualification - Responsibility - Contracting officer findings - Affirmative determination - GAO review DIGEST: Protestor's contention on request for reconsideration that the general standards of responsibility contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) are definitive responsibility criteria is erroneous, as the FAR contains general standards that apply to all procurements and are not the specific, objective standards that would constitute definitive responsibility criteria.

Attorneys

Information Systems, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Information Systems, Inc. (ISI) requests reconsideration of our dismissal of its protest against the award of a contract to Microfilm Imaging Systems under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW45-90-B-0092, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers for micrographic services.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

In its protest, ISI argued that the awardee was not a "responsible prospective contractor" due to its alleged inability to satisfy the general standards of responsibility contained in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 9.104. We dismissed the protest because our Office does not review an affirmative determination of responsibility absent a showing that the determination may have been made fraudulently or in bad faith or that definitive responsibility criteria contained in the solicitation were not met. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(5) (1990).

ISI now contends on reconsideration that the Corps failed to apply definitive responsibility criteria in making its affirmative determination of responsibility, and again cites FAR Sec. 9.104 as containing the standards that the Corps was required to apply in determining the awardee's responsibility. FAR Sec. 9.104 sets forth the general standards of responsibility (such as the ability to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule and a satisfactory performance record) that apply to all procurements; they are not the objective standards which are specific to a particular procurement (such as a minimum period of prescribed experience) that would constitute definitive responsibility criteria. The Pratt Whitney Co., Inc.; Onsrud Mach. Corp.- - Recon., B-232190.3; B-232190.4, Sept. 27, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 275.

Therefore, our initial dismissal was correct and we deny the request for reconsideration.