B-186392, MAY 11, 1976
Highlights
IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT QUESTIONED SUBCONTRACT WAS NOT AWARDED "BY OR FOR" GRANTEE. GAO WILL NOT CONSIDER PROSPECTIVE SUBCONTRACTOR'S COMPLAINT. TITAN AWARDED THE SUBCONTRACT IN FURTHERANCE OF A PRIME CONTRACT WHICH WAS AWARDED TO TITAN BY THE CITY OF LOWELL. THAT FOR SOME UNEXPLAINED REASON TITAN SELECTED FISCHER'S BID (WHICH WAS MORE THAN $100. A THRESHOLD QUESTION CONCERNING OUR REVIEW OF GRANT COMPLAINTS IS INITIALLY FOR DECISION. WE HAVE DECIDED TO CONSIDER COMPLAINTS OF CONTRACTS AWARDED "BY OR FOR" GRANTEES. A CONTRACT MAY BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN AWARDED "FOR" A GRANTEE IF THE GRANTEE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE AWARD PROCESS HAD THE NET EFFECT OF CAUSING THE SELECTION OF THE SUBCONTRACT IN QUESTION.
B-186392, MAY 11, 1976
SINCE COMPLAINANT ARGUES THAT GRANTEE REFUSES TO INVESTIGATE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING PRIME CONTRACTOR'S SELECTION OF OTHER THAN LOW SUBCONTRACT BID (SUBMITTED BY COMPLAINANT), IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT QUESTIONED SUBCONTRACT WAS NOT AWARDED "BY OR FOR" GRANTEE. THEREFORE, GAO WILL NOT CONSIDER PROSPECTIVE SUBCONTRACTOR'S COMPLAINT.
HONEYWELL, INC. (HONEYWELL), REQUESTS OUR REVIEW OF A SUBCONTRACT AWARDED BY TITAN NORTHEAST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (TITAN) TO FISCHER & PORTER, INC. (FISCHER). TITAN AWARDED THE SUBCONTRACT IN FURTHERANCE OF A PRIME CONTRACT WHICH WAS AWARDED TO TITAN BY THE CITY OF LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS. THE CITY HAS RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL FUNDS FROM THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO FINANCE THE PRIME CONTRACT. HONEYWELL ARGUES THAT IT SUBMITTED THE LOWEST BID FOR THE SUBCONTRACT WORK IN QUESTION, BUT THAT FOR SOME UNEXPLAINED REASON TITAN SELECTED FISCHER'S BID (WHICH WAS MORE THAN $100,000 HIGHER THAN HONEYWELL'S BID).
A THRESHOLD QUESTION CONCERNING OUR REVIEW OF GRANT COMPLAINTS IS INITIALLY FOR DECISION. WE HAVE DECIDED TO CONSIDER COMPLAINTS OF CONTRACTS AWARDED "BY OR FOR" GRANTEES. A CONTRACT MAY BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN AWARDED "FOR" A GRANTEE IF THE GRANTEE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE AWARD PROCESS HAD THE NET EFFECT OF CAUSING THE SELECTION OF THE SUBCONTRACT IN QUESTION. COPELAND SYSTEMS, INC., 55 COMP.GEN. 390, 395 (1975), 75-2 CPD 237.
HERE, HOWEVER, HONEYWELL COMPLAINS THAT THE CITY IS REFUSING TO "INQUIRE INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING A GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S USE OF OTHER THAN THE LOW FILED SUB-BIDDER."
FROM THIS STATEMENT, AS WELL AS FROM RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY HONEYWELL, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT TITAN, RATHER THAN THE CITY, CAUSED THE SELECTION OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR IN QUESTION AND THAT THE SUBCONTRACT CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN AWARDED "BY OR FOR" THE GRANTEE.
ACCORDINGLY, WE WILL NOT CONSIDER HONEYWELL'S COMPLAINT.