B-154865, SEP. 14, 1964
Highlights
WE ARE ADVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE COMPETENCY AND CREDIT OF YOUR ORGANIZATION TO PERFORM THE CONTEMPLATED PROCUREMENT WAS THE SUBJECT OF TWO PREAWARD SURVEYS. NEGATIVE REPORTS WERE RETURNED TO THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE BY THE SURVEY TEAMS. IT WAS DETERMINED BY A PREAWARD BOARD ON JUNE 23. THE SMALL BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THIS BOARD MEETING AND WAS APPRISED OF THE BASES FOR SUCH RECOMMENDATION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USUAL PROCEDURE WHERE THE OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE OFFER OF A SMALL BUSINESS FIRM IS REJECTED FOR LACK OF COMPETENCY AS TO CAPACITY AND CREDIT. THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WAS ADVISED THAT YOUR OFFER HAD BEEN REJECTED FOR NONRESPONSIBILITY IN THE AREAS OF TECHNICAL CAPACITY AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
B-154865, SEP. 14, 1964
TO ACTECH CORPORATION:
BY COMMUNICATION DATED JULY 30, 1964, YOU PROTESTED AGAINST ANY AWARD TO ANY OFFEROR OTHER THAN YOUR CORPORATION UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 383/709029/64Q, ISSUED ON APRIL 21, 1964, BY THE AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, FOR TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE APX-7 RADAR RECOGNITION SYSTEM.
WE ARE ADVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE COMPETENCY AND CREDIT OF YOUR ORGANIZATION TO PERFORM THE CONTEMPLATED PROCUREMENT WAS THE SUBJECT OF TWO PREAWARD SURVEYS. NEGATIVE REPORTS WERE RETURNED TO THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE BY THE SURVEY TEAMS, AND IT WAS DETERMINED BY A PREAWARD BOARD ON JUNE 23, 1964, AFTER REVIEWING THE PREAWARD SURVEYS, THAT AN AWARD TO YOUR ORGANIZATION COULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED. THE SMALL BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THIS BOARD MEETING AND WAS APPRISED OF THE BASES FOR SUCH RECOMMENDATION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USUAL PROCEDURE WHERE THE OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE OFFER OF A SMALL BUSINESS FIRM IS REJECTED FOR LACK OF COMPETENCY AS TO CAPACITY AND CREDIT, THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WAS ADVISED THAT YOUR OFFER HAD BEEN REJECTED FOR NONRESPONSIBILITY IN THE AREAS OF TECHNICAL CAPACITY AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES, AND APPARENTLY WAS REQUESTED TO REVIEW THE MATTER OF YOUR NONRESPONSIBILITY. ON AUGUST 10, 1964, THAT ADMINISTRATION ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT YOUR FIRM DECLINED TO FILE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY UNDER 13 C.F.R. 124.8-16 (B), AND THAT IT CONSIDERED THE CASE CLOSED. THE MATTER WHETHER AN OFFEROR IS A RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR IS ONE SOLELY FOR DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY, AND WE DO NOT SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE AGENCY IN THE ABSENCE OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, COLLUSION, BAD FAITH, OR LACK OF PROPER FACTUAL BASIS. SEE 37 COMP. GEN. 703, 705, WHERE A SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN DECLINED OR FAILED TO FURNISH INFORMATION TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY PURPOSES, AND WAS THEREAFTER DETERMINED TO BE NONRESPONSIBLE.
INASMUCH AS YOU DID NOT AVAIL YOURSELVES OF THE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED BY LAW AND REGULATION TO HAVE THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION CONSIDER THE MATTER OF YOUR COMPETENCY, AS TO CAPACITY AND CREDIT, TO PERFORM THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT, WE FIND NO LEGAL BASIS TO QUESTION THE REJECTION OF YOUR UNSOLICITED OFFER UNDER THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.