B-132307, FEB. 25, 1958
B-132307: Feb 25, 1958
Additional Materials:
Contact:
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov
Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov
IS NO LONGER LOCATED AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN THE PROTEST AND HAS LEFT NO FORWARDING ADDRESS WITH THE POST OFFICE. THIS DECISION IS ADDRESSED TO YOU AT YOUR CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ADDRESS. WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH A COMPLETE REPORT CONCERNING YOUR PROTEST. YOUR PROTEST WAS REFERRED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO THE GSA BOARD OF REVIEW FOR CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO HIM AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN. AT THE TIME THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR WAS REQUIRED TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER. THE RECORD BEFORE HIM SHOWED THAT YOU HAD NEVER CONDUCTED A TYPEWRITER REPAIR BUSINESS IN THE SAN ANTONIO AREA WHICH WAS THE LOCALITY COVERED BY THE INVITATION. THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETELY EMPTY.
B-132307, FEB. 25, 1958
TO MR. HARVEY W. LOCKE, C/O WARD'S TYPEWRITER REPAIR:
IN YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 18, 1957, YOU, DOING BUSINESS AS ALLIED TYPEWRITER CO., SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, PROTESTED THE REJECTION OF YOUR LOW BID AND THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO SOUTHERN SALES AND SERVICE TO REPAIR, MAINTAIN AND SERVICE TYPEWRITERS IN THE SAN ANTONIO AREA.
SINCE ALLIED TYPEWRITER CO. IS NO LONGER LOCATED AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN THE PROTEST AND HAS LEFT NO FORWARDING ADDRESS WITH THE POST OFFICE, THIS DECISION IS ADDRESSED TO YOU AT YOUR CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ADDRESS.
BY LETTER DATED JUNE 27, 1957, THE ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH A COMPLETE REPORT CONCERNING YOUR PROTEST. YOUR PROTEST WAS REFERRED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO THE GSA BOARD OF REVIEW FOR CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO HIM AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECORDS MADE AVAILABLE TO IT AND THE TESTIMONY DEVELOPED AT A HEARING BEFORE IT, THE BOARD OF REVIEW RECOMMENDED THAT THE PROTEST BE DENIED. THE ADMINISTRATOR CONCURRED WITH THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND BY LETTER OF JANUARY 10, 1958, FORWARDED TWO COPIES OF THE BOARD'S REPORT TO OUR OFFICE.
ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, AT THE TIME THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR WAS REQUIRED TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, THE RECORD BEFORE HIM SHOWED THAT YOU HAD NEVER CONDUCTED A TYPEWRITER REPAIR BUSINESS IN THE SAN ANTONIO AREA WHICH WAS THE LOCALITY COVERED BY THE INVITATION. THE PRE-AWARD SURVEY DEVELOPED THAT YOU HAD RENTED A BUILDING IN SAN ANTONIO FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 1957 WITH AN OPTION FOR A ONE-YEAR LEASE. THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETELY EMPTY, EXCEPT FOR A SIGN ERECTED IN FRONT AND A TELEPHONE INSTALLED INSIDE. YOU HAD NO ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, THERE WERE NO EMPLOYEES, AND YOU HAD NO EQUIPMENT, SPARE PARTS, ETC., ON THE PREMISES WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR IN EVALUATING YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A BIDDER.
THE REPORT OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW FURTHER SHOWS:
"THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ALSO HAD BEFORE HIM THE REPORTS SUBMITTED TO REGION 7 BY THE USA OFFICIALS IN REGION 9 AND BY THE GSA COMPLIANCE DIVISION. THE REPORTS FROM REGION 9 STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE REGION'S EXPERIENCE WITH THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN UNSATISFACTORY AND THAT IT HAD BEEN NECESSARY TO TERMINATE THE APPELLANT'S TYPEWRITER REPAIR CONTRACT IN REGION 9 BECAUSE OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE. THE REPORT ALSO SHOWED THAT THE TIME OF MR. HARVEY W. LOCKE, OWNER OF THE ALLIED TYPEWRITER COMPANY APPEARED ON THE GSA REFER LIST.
"THE REPORT FROM THE GSA COMPLIANCE DIVISION CONTAINED INFORMATION CONCERNING SERIOUS CHARGES WHICH HAD BEEN MADE CONCERNING THE HONESTY AND RELIABILITY OF MR. HARVEY W. LOCKE. THE REPORT ALSO CONTAINED INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT SEVERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS IN CALIFORNIA HAD FOUND MR. HARVEY W. LOCKE TO BE AN UNSATISFACTORY CONTRACTOR. THE REPORT ALSO POINTED OUT THAT MR. LOCKE HAD SUBMITTED BIDS TO THE GSA IN REGION 9 UNDER THE NAME OF PILON TYPEWRITER COMPANY, WILLIAM J. PILON, OWNER, AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS SUBMITTING BIDS UNDER THE NAME OF WARD'S TYPEWRITER REPAIR, HARVEY W. LOCKE, OWNER.
"THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR HAD NO BASIS OR REASON FOR QUESTIONING THE CORRECTNESS OR ACCURACY OF THE REPORTS WHICH HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO HIM BY THE REGION 9 OFFICIALS AND BY THE COMPLIANCE DIVISION. FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH HE HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD APPEALED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FROM THE TERMINATION OF THE REGION 9 CONTRACT, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR HAD NO BASIS FOR ANTICIPATING WHAT THE FINAL DECISION ON THE APPEAL MIGHT BE. INSTEAD, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR WAS FORCED TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE TO HIM AT THE TIME.'
THUS, THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AT THE TIME APPEARS REASONABLY TO SUPPORT HIS DETERMINATION THAT YOU WERE NOT A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THAT YOUR BID WAS FOR REJECTION. IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING OF BAD FAITH OR A COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE FACTS, OUR OFFICE WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN REJECTING YOUR BID WAS IN ANY MANNER ILLEGAL.
ACCORDINGLY, WE PERCEIVE NO PROPER BASIS FOR ANY FURTHER ACTION BY OUR OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE REJECTION OF THE BID OF ALLIED TYPEWRITER CO. ..END :
