B-207210.2, JUN 2, 1982
Highlights
DIGEST: DECISION IS AFFIRMED ON RECONSIDERATION IN ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT EARLIER DECISION WAS BASED ON ERRORS OF FACT OR LAW. PAMLICO NOW CONTENDS THAT ITS PROTEST WAS "TRYING TO PORTRAY" DLA'S FAILURE TO PROPERLY APPLY THE SOLICITATION'S DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA. NEITHER CONTENTION IS A SUFFICIENT BASIS TO OVERTURN OUR PRIOR DECISION. COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH IS A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO AWARD. THE MERE QUESTIONING OF THE PROCURING OFFICER'S WISDOM AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO A SHOWING OF FRAUD. SINCE PAMLICO HAS MADE NO SHOWING THAT OUR DENIAL OF ITS PROTEST WAS ERRONEOUS. OUR PRIOR DECISION IS AFFIRMED.
B-207210.2, JUN 2, 1982
DIGEST: DECISION IS AFFIRMED ON RECONSIDERATION IN ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT EARLIER DECISION WAS BASED ON ERRORS OF FACT OR LAW.
PAMLICO CANVAS PRODUCTS, INC. - RECONSIDERATION:
PAMLICO CANVAS PRODUCTS, INC. (PAMLICO), REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN PAMLICO CANVAS PRODUCTS, INC., B-207210, MAY 5, 1982, 82-1 CPD , WHEREIN WE DISMISSED PAMLICO'S PROTEST AGAINST THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY'S (DLA) AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF CAMEL MANUFACTURING CO.'S (CAMEL) RESPONSIBILITY ON THE GROUND THAT PAMLICO HAD FAILED TO SHOW EITHER FRAUD ON THE PART OF PROCURING OFFICIALS OR MISAPPLICATION OF DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA.
PAMLICO NOW CONTENDS THAT ITS PROTEST WAS "TRYING TO PORTRAY" DLA'S FAILURE TO PROPERLY APPLY THE SOLICITATION'S DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA. FURTHER, PAMLICO STATES THAT IT INTENDED TO QUESTION "BOTH THE WISDOM AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICER IN HIS CONTINUED AWARDING OF CONTRACTS" TO CAMEL AT A TIME WHEN PAMLICO ALLEGES THAT CAMEL CANNOT MEET EITHER FUTURE OR CURRENT CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.
NEITHER CONTENTION IS A SUFFICIENT BASIS TO OVERTURN OUR PRIOR DECISION. THE TERM "DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA" REFERS TO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE PROTESTED SOLICITATION WHICH ESTABLISH SPECIFIC AND OBJECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA, COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH IS A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO AWARD. J.BARANELLO AND SONS, 58 COMP.GEN. 509 (1979), 79-1 CPD 322. PAMLICO HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE SOLICITATION. LIKEWISE, THE MERE QUESTIONING OF THE PROCURING OFFICER'S WISDOM AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO A SHOWING OF FRAUD. PAMLICO HAS THE BURDEN OF SUBMITTING EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF FRAUD. THE MERE ALLEGATION OF FRAUD BASED ON DLA'S HAVING FOUND CAMEL RESPONSIBLE DESPITE AN ALLEGED UNSATISFACTORY PAST RECORD OF PERFORMANCE DOES NOT SATISFY THIS BURDEN OF PROOF. POLICY RESEARCH INCORPORATED, B-200386, MARCH 5, 1981, 81-1 CPD 172.
SINCE PAMLICO HAS MADE NO SHOWING THAT OUR DENIAL OF ITS PROTEST WAS ERRONEOUS, WE SEE NO REASON TO CONSIDER ITS ARGUMENTS FURTHER. VIRGINIA - MARYLAND ASSOCIATES, INC. - RECONSIDERATION, B-191252, JULY 7, 1978, 78-2 CPD 19.
ACCORDINGLY, OUR PRIOR DECISION IS AFFIRMED.