B-184876, JAN 26, 1976
Highlights
PROTEST BY APPARENT LOW BIDDER UNDER TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE REGARDING CONTRACTING OFFICER'S METHOD OF EVALUATING BID IS NOT FOR CONSIDERATION BY GAO SINCE SBA SIZE APPEALS BOARD AFFIRMED REGIONAL SBA DECISION THAT APPARENT LOW BIDDER IS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS AND THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD AND DECISION BY SBA REGARDING SIZE STATUS IS CONCLUSIVE. 15 U.S.C. WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 6. THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT FOUR BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND WERE EVALUATED AS FOLLOWS: BASIC ALTERNATE L.W. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A MISTAKE MAY HAVE BEEN MADE AND THEREFORE REQUESTED CLARK TO VERIFY ITS BID. CLARK VERIFIED ITS BID BUT PROTESTED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S EVALUATION OF ITS ALTERNATE BID CONTENDING THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S EVALUATION OF ITS BID WAS CONTRARY TO THE IFB PROVISIONS.
B-184876, JAN 26, 1976
PROTEST BY APPARENT LOW BIDDER UNDER TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE REGARDING CONTRACTING OFFICER'S METHOD OF EVALUATING BID IS NOT FOR CONSIDERATION BY GAO SINCE SBA SIZE APPEALS BOARD AFFIRMED REGIONAL SBA DECISION THAT APPARENT LOW BIDDER IS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS AND THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD AND DECISION BY SBA REGARDING SIZE STATUS IS CONCLUSIVE. 15 U.S.C. SEC. 637(B)(6).
L.W. CLARK:
THIS MATTER CONCERNS A PROTEST FILED BY COUNSEL FOR L.W. CLARK UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) F41606-75-09059, ISSUED BY RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS. THE SUBJECT IFB, A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE, WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 6, 1975, FOR REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL FOR RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 1975, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1976, INCLUDING OPTIONS TO EXTEND ANNUALLY THROUGH 1978. NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT FOUR BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND WERE EVALUATED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIC ALTERNATE
L.W. CLARK $454,860 $804,984 GUTIERREZ DISPOSAL, INC. 490,050 452,529 MOORE SERVICES, INC. 497,862 477,469 MIDLAND MAINTENANCE, INC. 520,879 500,499
IN VIEW OF THE DISPARITY BETWEEN CLARK'S ALTERNATE BID AND THE OTHER BIDS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A MISTAKE MAY HAVE BEEN MADE AND THEREFORE REQUESTED CLARK TO VERIFY ITS BID. CLARK VERIFIED ITS BID BUT PROTESTED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S EVALUATION OF ITS ALTERNATE BID CONTENDING THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S EVALUATION OF ITS BID WAS CONTRARY TO THE IFB PROVISIONS. THIS QUESTION NEED NOT BE DECIDED BY OUR OFFICE IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING.
THE SAN ANTONIO OFFICE OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA), IN A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1975, FOUND CLARK TO BE OTHER THAN A SMALL BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCUREMENT. COUNSEL FOR CLARK SUBSEQUENTLY FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE SBA SIZE APPEALS BOARD. ON NOVEMBER 24, 1975, THE BOARD DENIED CLARK'S APPEAL. UNDER 15 U.S.C. SEC. 637(B)(6) (1970), A DECISION OF THE SBA REGARDING THE SIZE STATUS OF A CONCERN IS CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE IGNORED BY OUR OFFICE. SEE FORT VANCOUVER PLYWOOD COMPANY, B-179737, MAY 13, 1974, 74-1 CPD 243. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CLARK IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AN AWARD UNDER THE INVITATION AND ITS PROTEST IS RENDERED MOOT.
ACCORDINGLY, NO FURTHER ACTION ON CLARK'S PROTEST WILL BE TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE.