B-145678, JUL. 12, 1961

B-145678, JUL. 12, 1961

TO NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF APRIL 21, 1961, AND SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER BIDDER UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. C-940, ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT YOUR OFFER WAS THE LOWEST BID RECEIVED AND, THEREFORE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS BEING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT.

THE SUBJECT INVITATION SOUGHT PROPOSALS TO SUPPLY SUBSCRIPTIONS TO BULLETINS, JOURNALS, MAGAZINES, NEWSPAPERS AND MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS. THE FOUR PROPOSALS SUBMITTED WERE BASED UPON THE TERMS OF PARAGRAPH A OF THE SOLICITATION AND LISTED THE DISCOUNT OFFERED FROM THE BIDDING AGENCIES "TRADE PRICES" AS SHOWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PUBLISHED PRICE LISTS. THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, OFFERED TO FURNISH THE PUBLICATIONS ORDERED, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, AT A 10 PERCENT DISCOUNT FROM ITS "TRADE PRICE LIST," WITH A 3 PERCENT CASH DISCOUNT FOR PAYMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS. AS AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL, IT OFFERED TO FURNISH THE MATERIAL AT ITS COST, PLUS A 10 PERCENT SERVICE CHARGE, LESS THE SPECIFIED PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNT, WHICHEVER BILLING METHOD WAS MORE ECONOMICAL. SUCH OFFER WAS ACCEPTED UNDER DATE OF MARCH 6, 1961, WITH THE RIGHT RESERVED IN THE AGENCY TO APPLY THE PRICING METHOD MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

WHILE YOUR OFFER OF A 12 PERCENT REDUCTION FROM YOU SUBSCRIPTION LIST, PLUS A PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNT OF 2 PERCENT, IS LOWER THAN THE BASIC OFFER OF THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY, IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY THAT THE ALTERNATE PROPOSAL OF THE LATTER COMPANY WOULD, ULTIMATELY, RESULT IN THE MOST ECONOMICAL ARRANGEMENT FOR THE REQUIRED SERVICES. A FURTHER BASIS FOR REJECTING YOUR PROPOSAL WAS THE UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF YOUR 1960 CONTRACT WITH THE AGENCY. IN THAT REGARD, THERE HAVE BEEN RECORDED NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF UNFILLED ORDERS OR LONG DELAYS IN DELIVERY OF MATERIALS, AS WELL AS UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES FOR PRICE INCREASES, ALL OF WHICH RESULTED IN EXCESSIVE COSTS AND INORDINATE SUPERVISORY TIME EXPENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. AS A CONSEQUENCE THE CHIEF OF THE CONTRACT AND PROCUREMENT DIVISION FOUND THAT YOUR COMPANY HAS DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY IN ITS PERFORMANCE OF THE PRIOR YEAR CONTRACT.

QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROPOSED CONTRACTOR ARE FOR DETERMINATION BY THE PROCURING AGENCY INVOLVED AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH OR THE LACK OF ANY REASONABLE BASIS FOR A PARTICULAR FINDING, THIS OFFICE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN OBJECTING TO SUCH DETERMINATION. AS TO THIS CASE IT APPEARS THAT A BONA FIDE DETERMINATION ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD HAS BEEN MADE, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH OR PERSONAL PREJUDICE.