B-177685, MAR 5, 1973
Highlights
IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS OR DELIBERATE INTENT TO EXCLUDE DENNIS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE COMPETITION FOR THE SUBJECT CONTRACTS. THE MERE FACT THAT DENNIS WAS THE CURRENT CONTRACTOR WOULD NOT ALONE HAVE PLACED PROCUREMENT PERSONNEL ON NOTICE THAT THE FAILURE TO RECEIVE A BID FROM DENNIS RESULTED FROM NON-RECEIPT OF THE SOLICITATION. INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 15. HAD BEEN PERFORMING UNDER A CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE GRANITE CITY ARMY DEPOT FOR PACKING AND CRATING OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AT THE TIME THE SUBJECT IFB WAS ISSUED. YOU STATE THAT DENNIS DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE SUBJECT IFB AND WAS NOT THEREFORE GIVEN A CHANCE TO BID. THE PROCURING ACTIVITY REPORTS THAT A SOLICITATION (IFB) WAS MAILED TO DENNIS ON OCTOBER 20.
B-177685, MAR 5, 1973
BID PROTEST - INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR - NON-RECEIPT OF SOLICITATION DENIAL OF PROTEST BY DENNIS MOVING COMPANY, INC., AGAINST AWARD OF CONTRACTS TO OTHER FIRMS UNDER AN IFB ISSUED BY THE GRANITE CITY ARMY DEPOT, GRANITE CITY, ILL. FROM THE RECORD, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS OR DELIBERATE INTENT TO EXCLUDE DENNIS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE COMPETITION FOR THE SUBJECT CONTRACTS. THE FAILURE TO FURNISH A BID SET TO AN INTERESTED FIRM DOES NOT REQUIRE RESOLICITATION OF THE PROCUREMENT. 174230, NOVEMBER 17, 1971. THE MERE FACT THAT DENNIS WAS THE CURRENT CONTRACTOR WOULD NOT ALONE HAVE PLACED PROCUREMENT PERSONNEL ON NOTICE THAT THE FAILURE TO RECEIVE A BID FROM DENNIS RESULTED FROM NON-RECEIPT OF THE SOLICITATION. B-174230, NOVEMBER 17, 1971.
TO DENNIS MOVING COMPANY, INC.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 15, 1972, PROTESTING AGAINST AWARD OF CONTRACTS TO OTHER FIRMS UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DAAJ04-73-B-0011, ISSUED OCTOBER 20, 1972, BY THE GRANITE CITY ARMY DEPOT, GRANITE CITY, ILLINOIS.
DENNIS MOVING COMPANY, INCORPORATED (DENNIS), HAD BEEN PERFORMING UNDER A CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE GRANITE CITY ARMY DEPOT FOR PACKING AND CRATING OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AT THE TIME THE SUBJECT IFB WAS ISSUED. YOU STATE THAT DENNIS DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE SUBJECT IFB AND WAS NOT THEREFORE GIVEN A CHANCE TO BID.
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR PROTEST, THE PROCURING ACTIVITY REPORTS THAT A SOLICITATION (IFB) WAS MAILED TO DENNIS ON OCTOBER 20, 1972, AND THAT OF THE ELEVEN SOLICITATIONS MAILED THAT DAY, NONE WAS RETURNED BY THE U. S. POSTAL SERVICE. ALSO, THE PROCURING ACTIVITY ADVISES THAT THE SOLICITATION WAS SYNOPSIZED IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY AND COPIES WERE SENT TO SEVERAL LOCAL POST OFFICES AND TO THE LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY. THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND TWO CONTRACTS AWARDED ON DECEMBER 7, 1972.
FROM THE RECORD BEFORE THIS OFFICE, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS OR DELIBERATE INTENT TO EXCLUDE DENNIS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE COMPETITION FOR THE SUBJECT CONTRACTS. IN CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THOSE INVOLVED HERE, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE FAILURE TO FURNISH A BID SET TO AN INTERESTED FIRM DOES NOT REQUIRE RESOLICITATION OF THE PROCUREMENT. 174230, NOVEMBER 17, 1971, B-169758, JULY 9, 1970. THE MERE FACT THAT YOUR FIRM WAS THE CURRENT CONTRACTOR WOULD NOT ALONE HAVE PLACED PROCUREMENT PERSONNEL ON NOTICE THAT THE FAILURE TO RECEIVE A BID FROM DENNIS RESULTED FROM NONRECEIPT OF THE SOLICITATION. B 174230, NOVEMBER 17, 1971, B-168220, NOVEMBER 12, 1969, B-167367, AUGUST 26, 1969.
ALTHOUGH IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THE SOLICITATION, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.