B-174368, FEB 25, 1972

B-174368, FEB 25, 1972

BID PROTEST - ALLEGED NONRESPONSIBILITY OF SUCCESSFUL BIDDER DECISION DENYING PROTEST OF ARROW TRANSFER COMPANY, INC., AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO DELTA VAN AND STORAGE, INC., UNDER AN IFB ISSUED BY THE MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN THE PREAWARD SURVEY AND IN REVIEWING DELTA'S QUALIFICATIONS WERE PROPER, AND NO BASIS EXISTS WHEREBY THE COMP. GEN. MAY TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT DELTA WAS SUFFICIENTLY QUALIFIED TO RECEIVE THE AWARD. 37 COMP. GEN. 430, 435 (1957). ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.

TO HUDOCK AND HUDOCK:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST OF DECEMBER 17, 1971, ON BEHALF OF ARROW TRANSFER COMPANY, INC. (ARROW), AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO DELTA VAN AND STORAGE, INC. (DELTA), UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DAHC30-72-B-0002, ISSUED ON AUGUST 2, 1971, BY THE MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.

THE INSTANT SOLICITATION REQUESTED BIDS FOR PACKING, CRATING AND MOVING OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN THREE GEOGRAPHICAL ZONES OF THE WASHINGTON, D.C., AREA FOR A 12 MONTH PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1972, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1972. OF THE TWO RESPONSIVE BIDS SUBMITTED AND OPENED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1971, FOR ZONE III, WHICH IS THE SCHEDULE UNDER PROTEST, DELTA SUBMITTED THE LOWEST BID. AWARD WAS MADE TO DELTA ON DECEMBER 10, 1971, AS PRIMARY CONTRACTOR FOR ZONE III AND SECONDARY CONTRACTOR FOR ZONE I.

THE BASIS OF YOUR PROTEST ON BEHALF OF ARROW IS THAT DELTA LACKS THE CAPABILITY TO PROPERLY AND ADEQUATELY PERFORM THE CONTRACT. SPECIFICALLY YOU STATE:

"IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT EXPERIENCE OF THE MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON WITH THE INABILITY OF DELTA TO CONSISTENTLY CARRY 30,000 LBS. OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS, IT APPEARS THAT DELTA IS NOT CAPABLE OF HANDLING ALL THREE ZONES UNDER THE 1972 CONTRACT WHICH REQUIRES A DAILY CAPABILITY OF 145,000 LBS. OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS."

THIS CONCLUSION IS BASED UPON YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT:

" *** ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1971, DELTA VAN AND STORAGE, INC., HAS BEEN UNABLE TO MEET THE REQUIRED DAILY CAPABILITY OF 30,000 LBS. OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN ZONE III. THESE FAILURES OF DELTA OCCURRED AT LEAST ON THE FOLLOWING DATES IN 1971; MAY 28, JUNE 28, JUNE 30, JULY 1, JULY 29, AUGUST 31, AND NOVEMBER 14. *** "

IN RESPONSE TO THESE SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF DELTA'S FAILURE TO MEET THE REFERENCED ORDERS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT FURNISHED OUR OFFICE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY STATES:

"DELTA VAN AND STORAGE DID REFUSE ORDERS ON 28 MAY 1971, 28 JUNE 1971, 1 AND 29 JULY 1971 AND 31 AUGUST 1971 FOR THE REASON THAT HE WAS CALLED ABOUT 4:00 P.M. ONE DAY FOR COMPLETE SERVICE AND DELIVERY THE NEXT DAY WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE 24 HOURS NOTICE ALLOWED BY THE CONTRACT *** . HE REQUESTED AN EXTENSION OF THE DELIVERY DATE BUT THE REQUIRED DATE IN EACH CASE WAS IMPERATIVE.

"ON JUNE 30 1971 THE CONTRACTOR DID REFUSE AN ORDER BECAUSE HE WAS COMPLETELY OBLIGATED FOR THAT TIME AND COULD NOT PERFORM THAT ONE ORDER.

"14 NOVEMBER 1971 WAS SUNDAY AND NO WORK IS ORDERED OR PERFORMED ON SUNDAYS UNDER THE CONTRACT."

THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT FURTHER INDICATES THAT THE DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION OF THE BALTIMORE DISTRICT WAS REQUESTED TO PERFORM A COMPLETE PRE-AWARD SURVEY ON DELTA. THE SURVEY RESULTED IN A RECOMMENDATION OF AWARD TO DELTA ON BOTH ZONES BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE ADEQUATE FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, RECORD OF SATISFACTORY PAST PERFORMANCE, FINANCIAL BACKING, APPROPRIATE INSPECTION SYSTEM, AND THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES WHEN NEEDED DURING THE PEAK SEASONS. IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT DETERMINATIONS OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS ARE PRIMARILY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICIALS CONCERNED, AND WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH SUCH DETERMINATIONS UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE AGENCY'S ACTIONS WERE ARBITRARY OR NOT SUPPORTABLE BY THE RECORD.

IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN THE PREAWARD SURVEY AND IN REVIEWING DELTA'S QUALIFICATIONS WERE PROPER, AND NO BASIS EXISTS FOR THIS OFFICE TO TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT DELTA WAS SUFFICIENTLY QUALIFIED TO RECEIVE THE AWARD. 37 COMP. GEN. 430, 435 (1957).

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE SEE NO LEGAL BASIS TO QUESTION THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO DELTA AS THE LOW, RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, AND YOUR PROTEST ON BEHALF OF ARROW IS THEREFORE DENIED.