B-232402.2, Mar 1, 1989, 89-1 CPD 213

B-232402.2: Mar 1, 1989

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Julie Matta
(202) 512-4023
MattaJ@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Private disputes - GAO review DIGEST: The General Accounting Office will not consider a matter that is essentially a dispute between private parties. The contract award is tainted by misconduct because its partner offered his services in competition with Kempter-Rossman at the same time he was offering his services through Kempter-Rossman. We will not consider the protest. As we have previously held. Such a matter essentially concerns a dispute between private parties which this Office will not adjudicate in the context of a bid protest. The decision as to whether a firm is responsible is within the discretion of the contracting officer. Our Office will not review an affirmative determination in that regard except in limited circumstances not applicable here. 4 C.F.R.

B-232402.2, Mar 1, 1989, 89-1 CPD 213

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Private disputes - GAO review DIGEST: The General Accounting Office will not consider a matter that is essentially a dispute between private parties.

Kempter-Rossman International:

Kempter-Rossman International protests the award of a contract to Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTFH61-88-R- 00131, issued by the Federal Highway Administration for value engineering workshops. Kempter-Rossman asserts that one of its partners secretly collaborated with Arthur Beard in submitting a proposal. According to Kempter-Rossman, the contract award is tainted by misconduct because its partner offered his services in competition with Kempter-Rossman at the same time he was offering his services through Kempter-Rossman.

We will not consider the protest.

As we have previously held, such a matter essentially concerns a dispute between private parties which this Office will not adjudicate in the context of a bid protest. Meldick Services Inc., B-231072, May 3, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 433. Moreover, to the extent that the Kempter Rossman partner's conduct impacts Arthur Beard's eligibility for award, it involves Arthur Beard's responsibility as a prospective contractor.

Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 9.104-1. The decision as to whether a firm is responsible is within the discretion of the contracting officer, and our Office will not review an affirmative determination in that regard except in limited circumstances not applicable here. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(5) 1988; Urban Indian Council, Inc., B-225955.2, May 12, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 500.

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed and there is no basis for reimbursement of Kempter-Rossman's claimed proposal preparation or protest costs. 4 C.F.R. Secs. 21.3(m) and 21.6(d) 1988.

Nov 14, 2018

Nov 9, 2018

Nov 8, 2018

Nov 7, 2018

  • CDO Technologies, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest because it is untimely where it was filed more than 10 days after CDO knew or reasonably should have known the bases for its protest.
    B-416989
  • Protection Strategies, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
    B-416635

Looking for more? Browse all our products here