B-144256, DEC. 8, 1960
Highlights
INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 13. THERE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ALSO YOUR LETTERS OF OCTOBER 19. THE INVITATION WAS ISSUED JUNE 13. THE TEN OTHER BIDS RECEIVED WERE IN THE TOTAL AMOUNTS OF $7. IT IS REPORTED THAT BECAUSE OF YOUR UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE RECORD THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUBMITTED THE MATTER TO THE CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD WITH HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT YOUR BID BE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIBLE. THE CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CONCURRED IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND AWARD WAS MADE TO C. WHOSE BID WAS REGARDED AS REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE OTHER BIDS RECEIVED. AS YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVISED. WE HAVE HELD CONSISTENTLY THAT THE QUESTION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR PRIMARILY IS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS CONCERNED AND SUCH DETERMINATION WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED BY US IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SHOWING OF BAD FAITH OR LACK OF A REASONABLE FACTUAL BASIS THEREFOR.
B-144256, DEC. 8, 1960
TO MANHATTAN LIGHTING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 13, 1960, WITH ENCLOSURES, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD TO ANOTHER BIDDER UNDERINVITATION NO. JD-IFB-155-/7-6/-3956-60 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL STORES SUPPLY OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. THERE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ALSO YOUR LETTERS OF OCTOBER 19, OCTOBER 22, OCTOBER 25, OCTOBER 29, NOVEMBER 1 AND NOVEMBER 5, 1960.
THE INVITATION WAS ISSUED JUNE 13, 1960, REQUESTING BIDS--- TO BE OPENED JULY 13, 1960--- FOR FURNISHING PRY BARS. IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION, YOU SUBMITTED A BID OF $0.4196 EACH OR A TOTAL PRICE OF $4,471.26, LESS A DISCOUNT OF 1 PERCENT 30 DAYS. THE TEN OTHER BIDS RECEIVED WERE IN THE TOTAL AMOUNTS OF $7,512.48, $8,319.03, $8,844.48, $9,590.40, $9,696.96, $10,602.72, $11,082, $11,188.80, $19,820.16, AND $20,885.76 (DISREGARDING DISCOUNTS OFFERED).
IT IS REPORTED THAT BECAUSE OF YOUR UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE RECORD THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUBMITTED THE MATTER TO THE CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD WITH HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT YOUR BID BE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIBLE, SUCH RECOMMENDATION BEING BASED ON PREVIOUS DELINQUENCY WITH THE GENERAL STORES SUPPLY OFFICE AND OTHER AGENCIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AS SHOWN BY A REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 19, 1960, BY THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL, NEW YORK. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES ALSO THAT ON JUNE 23, 1960, HE HAD BEEN INFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL TH AT CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN YOUR CORPORATION HAD NOT BEEN CORRECTED. THE CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CONCURRED IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND AWARD WAS MADE TO C. DREW AND COMPANY, INC., THE NEXT LOW BIDDER, ON AUGUST 10, 1960 (CONTRACT NO. N155-/MIS/-55989), WHOSE BID WAS REGARDED AS REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE OTHER BIDS RECEIVED, PREVIOUS PROCUREMENT PRICES, AND THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CATALOG PRICE FOR SIMILAR MATERIAL.
AS YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVISED, WE HAVE HELD CONSISTENTLY THAT THE QUESTION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR PRIMARILY IS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS CONCERNED AND SUCH DETERMINATION WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED BY US IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SHOWING OF BAD FAITH OR LACK OF A REASONABLE FACTUAL BASIS THEREFOR. COMP. GEN. 468; 38 ID. 131; ID. 778; 37 ID. 430; ID. 676; ID. 798; 36 ID. 42. IN THE INSTANT MATTER, THE INFORMATION SHOWN IN THE FILE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS WERE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS FOR SUCH ACTIONS. THEREFORE, THERE APPEARS NO PROPER BASIS FOR OBJECTION BY OUR OFFICE TO THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE IN REJECTING YOUR BID.