B-176493, DEC 11, 1972

B-176493, DEC 11, 1972

BID PROTEST - COLLUSION - SUBMISSION OF MULTIPLE BIDS DECISION AFFIRMING DENIAL OF THE PROTEST OF C. C. SKINNER, AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER FIRM UNDER AN IFB ISSUED BY HOLLOMAN AFB, N.M. THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPALS OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACTOR HAVE RESUMED THEIR MARITAL RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT CHANGE THE FINDING OF NO COLLUSION AT THE TIME OF THE BID SUBMISSION TO SUBMIT ALTERNATE LOW BIDS.

TO C. C. SKINNER:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR UNDATED LETTER REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION B-176493, OCTOBER 12, 1972, PRIOR TO THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS F29651-72-B-0229, ISSUED BY THE PROCUREMENT DIVISION, HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE ADVISED THAT AN AWARD WAS MADE UNDER THE SUBJECT IFB ON OCTOBER 18, 1972, ONE WEEK PRIOR TO OUR RECEIPT OF YOUR UNDATED LETTER.

YOU CONTEND THAT THERE HAS BEEN ONE MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU ADVANCE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS, AS THE BASES UPON WHICH OUR DECISION SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED.

IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENT TO WHICH YOU REFER IS YOUR ADVICE THAT ERNIE AND ALMA ALEXANDER HAVE RESUMED A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP, WHICH NEGATES THE CREDIBILITY OF OUR DECISION ATTRIBUTED TO ERNIE ALEXANDER'S MOTIVE IN SUBMITTING A BID.

YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE, SUCH AS CERTIFICATES ATTESTING TO REMARRIAGE, TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ALLEGATION. HOWEVER, EVEN IF WE ACCEPT YOUR ADVICE AS BEING CORRECT, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT AS SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR CHANGING THE CONCLUSIONS SET OUT IN OUR OCTOBER 12 DECISION. INDICATED THEREIN, OUR CONCLUSIONS WERE BASED UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY EXISTED AT THE TIME OF BID SUBMISSION. WE BELIEVE THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT, AT THAT TIME, ERNIE AND ALMA ALEXANDER WERE DIVORCED AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS OTHER THAN HARMONIOUS. ANY SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD NEITHER REQUIRE NOR JUSTIFY A CHANGE IN OUR PREVIOUS CONCLUSIONS.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR APPARENT BELIEF THAT THE SUBMISSION OF A BID BY ERNIE ALEXANDER MUST BE VIEWED AS A COLLUSIVE ACTION, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PROCURING OFFICIALS, AS OUTLINED IN OUR DECISION, APPEAR SOMEWHAT RESPONSIBLE FOR ERNIE'S BID SUBMISSION. FURTHERMORE, SINCE ERNIE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE MEETING AT WHICH HE WAS EXPELLED, AND WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF ITS MINUTES UNTIL A WEEK LATER, WE DO NOT CONSIDER HIS INITIAL QUESTION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF THE MEETING TO BE AN UNWARRANTED OR UNEXPECTED RESPONSE.

YOU ALSO ALLEGE THAT LIBERTY'S BY-LAWS ARE DIRECTLY PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR RIGHTS AS A BIDDER, IN THAT THE PROVISION IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 6, ESTABLISHES THE LEGALITY OF A REGULAR BOARD MEETING HELD ELSEWHERE THAN THE CORPORATE OFFICES IF WRITTEN CONSENT OF ALL DIRECTORS IS PROVIDED EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE MEETING. WHILE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THIS PROVISION OF THE BY-LAWS DID OPERATE TO YOUR DISADVANTAGE, WE SEE NO BASIS FOR QUESTIONING ITS VALIDITY, AND THEREFORE BELIEVE IT WAS NECESSARY AND PROPER TO RECOGNIZE AND APPLY THE PROVISIONS IN REACHING OUR DECISION.

AS FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS THAT LIBERTY HAS BEEN PRESENTED WITH AN OPTION, AFTER BID OPENING, AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE BIDDING SYSTEM IS THEREFORE COMPROMISED, THE SAME ALLEGATIONS WERE CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE AND DISCUSSED IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 12. WE FIND NOTHING IN YOUR LATEST LETTER WHICH PRESENTS A BASIS UPON WHICH TO REVISE OUR ORIGINAL CONCLUSIONS.

ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 12 IS HEREBY AFFIRMED.