B-153826, JUN. 19, 1964
Highlights
TO MUNSTON ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CORP.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 25. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR FIRM WAS DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER NOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE EITHER TECHNICALLY OR FINANCIALLY FOR THIS PROCUREMENT BECAUSE. SINCE YOU ARE A SMALL BUSINESS FIRM. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WHICH AFTER REVIEWING THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY. WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN EXHAUSTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. WE HAVE HELD THAT SUCH REFUSAL MUST BE REGARDED AS PERSUASIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPETENCY OR CREDIT OF THE BIDDER CONCERNED. 39 COMP. WHEN THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY IS DENIED. THUS THERE IS NO PROPER BASIS FOR OBJECTION BY OUR OFFICE TO THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO ANOTHER BIDDER. 37 COMP.
B-153826, JUN. 19, 1964
TO MUNSTON ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CORP.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 25, 1964, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF ANY CONTRACT RESULTING FROM PROPOSAL REQUEST NO. 627D2-46076 (S) FOR EQUIPMENT AN/SRA-33.
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR FIRM WAS DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER NOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE EITHER TECHNICALLY OR FINANCIALLY FOR THIS PROCUREMENT BECAUSE, AMONG OTHER FACTORS, OF MUNSTON ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION'S STATUS AS A DEBTOR IN POSSESSION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. SINCE YOU ARE A SMALL BUSINESS FIRM, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WHICH AFTER REVIEWING THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY, DECLINED TO ISSUE SUCH CERTIFICATE IN THIS INSTANCE. THE MATTER OF YOUR CAPABILITIES, BOTH TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL, WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN EXHAUSTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, INCLUDING A MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION WHICH RESULTED IN THE DETERMINATION OF NONRESPONSIBILITY BEING AFFIRMED.
THE MATTER OF YOUR FIRM'S RESPONSIBILITY AS A PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR UNDER THE INVITATION BECAME ONE SOLELY FOR RESOLUTION BY THE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY IN VIEW OF THE REFUSAL OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY. WE HAVE HELD THAT SUCH REFUSAL MUST BE REGARDED AS PERSUASIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPETENCY OR CREDIT OF THE BIDDER CONCERNED. 39 COMP. GEN. 705. WHEN THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY IS DENIED, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION OF NONRESPONSIBILITY MUST BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN AFFIRMED.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO LEGAL BASIS EXISTS FOR DISTURBING THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS, AND THUS THERE IS NO PROPER BASIS FOR OBJECTION BY OUR OFFICE TO THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO ANOTHER BIDDER. 37 COMP. GEN. 430, 435.
ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.
RESPECTING YOUR INQUIRY OF MAY 19, 1964, AS TO THE QUANTITY AND CONTRACT PRICE CONTAINED IN THE AWARD MADE TO COLLINS RADIO COMPANY, IT IS NOTED THAT NO ITEM OR UNIT PRICES APPEAR IN LETTER CONTRACT NOBSR-91205, AWARDED TO THAT COMPANY FOR 196 ITEMS AS A RESULT OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 627D2- 46076 (S). THE MAXIMUM TOTAL PRICE LIMITATION OF THE DEFINITIVE CONTRACT AS SET FORTH THEREIN IS $2,286,465.44.