[Protest of Army Finding of Nonresponsibility]
B-210390: Mar 13, 1984
- Full Report:
A firm protested an Army decision that it was nonresponsible for the purposes of two contract awards for refuse collection services. The contracting officer had learned that the president of the protesting firm had been under criminal investigation for theft while employed as the manager for the previous contractor. In addition, the protester's bid prices were so low that he questioned its financial capability and ability to secure the necessary equipment and personnel to meet the contract requirements. The protester contended that the record failed to establish a lack of integrity, since its president was not indicted on the allegation of theft and contended that it had sufficient financial and technical resources. The lack of an offerer's integrity is primarily a matter for determination by the administrative officers concerned. GAO will not question such a determination, absent a clear showing that it lacks a reasonable basis. GAO found that the record provided sufficient evidence of lack of integrity to find the firm nonresponsible. Accordingly, there was no need to consider the issue of the protester's financial and technical capabilities, and the protest was denied.