B-206737, APR 6, 1982
Highlights
THE PROTEST IS SUMMARILY DENIED SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PROTESTER WAS DELIBERATELY OR CONSCIOUSLY EXCLUDED FROM BIDDING AND 24 RESPONSIVE BIDS WERE RECEIVED. KILGORE STATES THAT IT WAS THE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR. THE PROTESTER STATES THAT ITS FIRM CONTACTED A REPRESENTATIVE OF GSA IN ATLANTA REGARDING THIS PROCUREMENT AND WAS ADVISED THAT AN IFB HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO ITS FIRM. THE ONLY INCORRECT INFORMATION ON GSA'S MAILING ADDRESS WAS A ZIP CODE OF 32401 INSTEAD OF 32407. KILGORE CONTENDS THAT THIS ERROR SHOULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN ITS NOT RECEIVING THE INVITATION. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF GSA THAT A COPY OF THE INVITATION WAS SENT TO 318 FIRMS.
B-206737, APR 6, 1982
DIGEST: EVEN THOUGH PROTESTER DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE IFB, THE PROTEST IS SUMMARILY DENIED SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PROTESTER WAS DELIBERATELY OR CONSCIOUSLY EXCLUDED FROM BIDDING AND 24 RESPONSIVE BIDS WERE RECEIVED.
KILGORE KARPET KARE:
KILGORE KARPET KARE (KILGORE) PROTESTS THE FAILURE OF ITS FIRM TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) FOR THE 1982 CONTRACT FOR CARPET INSTALLATION. KILGORE STATES THAT IT WAS THE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, WE SUMMARILY DENY THE PROTEST.
THE PROTESTER STATES THAT ITS FIRM CONTACTED A REPRESENTATIVE OF GSA IN ATLANTA REGARDING THIS PROCUREMENT AND WAS ADVISED THAT AN IFB HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO ITS FIRM. THE ONLY INCORRECT INFORMATION ON GSA'S MAILING ADDRESS WAS A ZIP CODE OF 32401 INSTEAD OF 32407, BUT KILGORE CONTENDS THAT THIS ERROR SHOULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN ITS NOT RECEIVING THE INVITATION.
WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF GSA THAT A COPY OF THE INVITATION WAS SENT TO 318 FIRMS, INCLUDING KILGORE, AND THAT 24 FIRMS SUBMITTED BIDS. WE ARE ALSO INFORMED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CONSIDERS THE PRICES OF THE RESPONSIVE BIDS RECEIVED TO BE REASONABLE.
WE HAVE HELD IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS THAT WHERE ADEQUATE COMPETITION RESULTED IN REASONABLE PRICES AND WHERE THERE WAS NO PURPOSE OR INTENT ON THE PART OF THE PROCURING AGENCY TO PRECLUDE A BIDDER FROM COMPETING, BIDS NEED NOT BE REJECTED SOLELY BECAUSE A BIDDER (EVEN THE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR) DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE IFB. SEE HARDWICK KNITTED FABRICS, INC., B-201245, DECEMBER 16, 1980, 80-2 CPD 435; MICHAEL O'CONNOR, INC., B-185502, MAY 14, 1976, 76-1 CPD 326.
HERE, RESPONSIVE BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND KILGORE HAS PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED FROM COMPETING. RATHER, IT APPEARS KILGORE'S FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE BID RESULTED FROM AN ERROR IN THE ZIP CODE.
BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM KILGORE'S INITIAL SUBMISSION TO OUR OFFICE THAT THE PROTEST IS WITHOUT LEGAL MERIT, WE HAVE REACHED THE DECISION WITHOUT REQUIRING A REPORT FROM THE PROCURING ACTIVITY. SEACOAST TRUCKING & MOVING, B-200315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1980, 80-2 CPD 235.
THE PROTEST IS SUMMARILY DENIED.