Matter Of: Shields Inter-State Protective Services, Inc. File: B-258081.2 Date: October 11, 1994

B-258081.2: Oct 11, 1994

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

We dismiss the protest because a protester's challenge to the awardee's ability to perform the contract is generally not reviewed by our office. Inter-State is in effect only challenging Colt's ability to perform in accordance with the solicitation at the price it offered. A determination that a bidder is responsible is based. On subjective judgments which generally are not susceptible to reasoned review. An agency's affirmative determination of a contractor's responsibility will not be reviewed by our Office absent a showing of possible fraud or bad faith on the part of procurement officials. Or that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation may have been misapplied. 4 C.F.R.

Matter Of: Shields Inter-State Protective Services, Inc. File: B-258081.2 Date: October 11, 1994

DECISION

Shields Inter-State Protective Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Colt Detective Agency, Inc. by the Department of the Navy under invitation for bids No. N62477-94-B-3030.

We dismiss the protest because a protester's challenge to the awardee's ability to perform the contract is generally not reviewed by our office.

Here, although Inter-State characterizes Colt's bid as nonresponsive to the solicitation requirements, Inter-State is in effect only challenging Colt's ability to perform in accordance with the solicitation at the price it offered. This challenge refers not to the responsiveness of the bid but to the responsibility of the bidder.

A determination that a bidder is responsible is based, in large measure, on subjective judgments which generally are not susceptible to reasoned review. Thus, an agency's affirmative determination of a contractor's responsibility will not be reviewed by our Office absent a showing of possible fraud or bad faith on the part of procurement officials, or that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation may have been misapplied. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(5); King-Fisher Co., B-236687.2, Feb. 12, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 177. Where, as here, there is no showing of possible fraud or bad faith, or that definitive responsibility criteria have been misapplied, we have no basis to review the protest.