Skip to main content

Complaint Alleging That Grantees Engaged in Practices and Procedures Which Were Restrictive of Competition

B-200268 Mar 17, 1981
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

A firm complained of the award of contracts by the transit authorities of Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. The contracts were awarded pursuant to grants administered by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) and were 80-percent funded by UMTA. The complainant was found to be the apparent low bidder on both the transit authorities' requirements, but was subsequently rejected as nonresponsive. The award was made to the next respective low bidder for each requirement. The complainant contended that: (1) the grantees deliberately engaged in certain practices and procedures which were restrictive of competition and which discriminated against small and minority business participation; (2) neither the Seattle transit authority nor UMTA fully complied with certain provisions of the UMTA External Operating Manual (EOM); and (3) the Seattle transit authority acted improperly by initially determining that the product to be supplied by its awardee would qualify as a domestic end product, when in fact it would not; thus, the awardee should have been declared nonresponsive. GAO held that: (1) the first allegation was without merit because the grantees complied with the applicable requirements concerning the solicitation on small and minority businesses; (2) the second allegation was without merit because UMTA eventually received and considered all relevant information prior to concurring with the award, and there was no evidence that the complainant was prejudiced by any procedural deficiency which may have occurred; and (3) the Seattle transit authority did not act in restriction of competition or in a discriminatory manner when it concluded that the proposed awardee would supply a domestic end product even though such a determination was incorrect. While the record showed that the Seattle transit authority was mistaken, there was no evidence that the transit authority acted out of improper motivation. Thus the allegation was without merit that the awardee should have been declared nonresponsive because the awardee was not required to offer a domestic end product as a condition of responsiveness. In addition, the complainant contended that it requested bid bond waivers from the transit authorities prior to bid opening. GAO held that the grantees' failure to consider a waiver of the bid bond requirement was not improper since the complainant failed to follow procedures for appealing such requirements. Accordingly, the complaint was denied.

Downloads

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs