B-227401, JUN 19, 1987, 87-1 CPD 618
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION - OFFERS - PRICE REASONABLENESS - DETERMINATION - ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION DIGEST: A CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION CONCERNING PRICE REASONABLENESS IS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION WHICH WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWING THAT THE DETERMINATION ITSELF IS UNREASONABLE OR THAT IT IS BASED ON BAD FAITH OR FRAUD. UNRELATED PROCUREMENT FOR A DIFFERENT ITEM BECAUSE PRICES RECEIVED WERE CONSIDERED TO BE UNREASONABLE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S JUDGMENT WAS UNREASONABLE UNDER THE CURRENT SOLICITATION. THE GROUNDS OF PROTEST ARE THAT AWARD WAS MADE TO BLACK & DECKER AT AN UNREASONABLY HIGH PRICE. AWARD WAS MADE TO BLACK & DECKER.
B-227401, JUN 19, 1987, 87-1 CPD 618
PROCUREMENT - COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION - OFFERS - PRICE REASONABLENESS - DETERMINATION - ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION DIGEST: A CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION CONCERNING PRICE REASONABLENESS IS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION WHICH WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWING THAT THE DETERMINATION ITSELF IS UNREASONABLE OR THAT IT IS BASED ON BAD FAITH OR FRAUD. THE CANCELLATION OF ANOTHER, UNRELATED PROCUREMENT FOR A DIFFERENT ITEM BECAUSE PRICES RECEIVED WERE CONSIDERED TO BE UNREASONABLE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S JUDGMENT WAS UNREASONABLE UNDER THE CURRENT SOLICITATION.
PORTER-CABLE CORPORATION:
PORTER-CABLE CORPORATION PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION FOR A QUANTITY OF ELECTRIC IMPACT WRENCHES BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. FCEP -BM-F7502-N(7502-N). THE GROUNDS OF PROTEST ARE THAT AWARD WAS MADE TO BLACK & DECKER AT AN UNREASONABLY HIGH PRICE. WE DISMISS THE PROTEST UNDER OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.3(F) (1986), BECAUSE PORTER FAILS TO STATE A VALID BASIS FOR PROTEST.
AWARD WAS MADE TO BLACK & DECKER, AFTER NEGOTIATIONS WERE CONDUCTED AND BEST AND FINAL OFFERS WERE SUBMITTED, ON THE BASIS OF ITS LOW PRICE. THEREAFTER, PORTER FILED A PROTEST WITH THE AGENCY ALLEGING THAT AWARD WAS MADE TO BLACK & DECKER AT AN UNREASONABLY HIGH PRICE. IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROTEST, PORTER DIRECTED THE AGENCY'S ATTENTION TO AN INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) FOR ANOTHER ITEM WHICH THE AGENCY CANCELED ON GROUNDS THAT THE OFFERED PRICES WERE UNREASONABLY HIGH. THE AGENCY DENIED PORTER'S PROTEST AND PORTER'S PROTEST TO US FOLLOWED.
THE PROTESTER PRINCIPALLY GROUNDS ITS ARGUMENT THAT BLACK & DECKER'S OFFERED PRICE WAS UNREASONABLY HIGH UPON THE FACT THAT THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE FOR THE PRICE OF THE WRENCHES OVER THE PREVIOUS BUT WAS GREATER THAN THE PRICE INCREASE REPRESENTED BY THE LOW BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE IFB.
A DETERMINATION CONCERNING PRICE REASONABLENESS IS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION INVOLVING THE EXERCISE OF BUSINESS JUDGEMENT, WHICH OUR OFFICE WILL NOT QUESTION UNLESS THAT DETERMINATION IS UNREASONABLE OR THERE IS A SHOWING OF BAD FAITH OR FRAUD. CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS, INC., B-224374.2, JAN. 20, 1987, 87-1 CPD PARA. 71. IN THIS CONNECTION, A DETERMINATION CONCERNING PRICE REASONABLENESS MAY BE BASED UPON A COMPARISON WITH SUCH FACTORS AS GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES, PAST PROCUREMENT HISTORY, CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS, INCLUDING ANY WHICH HAVE BEEN REVEALED BY THE COMPETITION RECEIVED. ID. HERE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT BLACK & DECKER'S PRICE WAS REASONABLE AFTER CONDUCTING DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPETITIVE RANGE OFFERORS. WE CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH A DETERMINATION IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION MERELY BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN ON ANOTHER SOLICITATION FOR AN UNRELATED ITEM. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE PROTESTER HAS NOT SHOWN ANY BASIS UPON WHICH WE COULD OBJECT TO THE AWARD.
THE PROTEST IS DISMISSED.