Protest Alleging Nonresponsibility

B-206777: Mar 29, 1982

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(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

A firm protested the consideration of another firm as the low bidder on a Navy solicitation for radio frequency filters. The protester alleged that the low bidder lacked the financial capability and necessary manpower to undertake the contract. Also, the protester alleged that the firm used a nonapproved component on its filter. These are matters of the bidder's responsibility and GAO does not review questions of responsibility. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.

B-206777, MAR 29, 1982

DIGEST: PROTEST THAT THE POSSIBLE LOW BIDDER CANNOT SATISFACTORILY PERFORM THE CONTRACT IS A QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT FOR REVIEW BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

FIL-COIL COMPANY, INC.:

FIL-COIL COMPANY, INC. (FIL-COIL) PROTESTS CONSIDERATION OF ALLTRONICS, INC., AS LOW BIDDER ON THE NAVY'S SOLICITATION NO. N00104 81-B-1648 FOR RADIO FREQUENCY FILTERS.

FIL-COIL ALLEGES THAT ALLTRONICS LACKS THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY AND NECESSARY MANPOWER TO UNDERTAKE THE CONTRACT. FIL-COIL FURTHER ALLEGES THAT ALLTRONICS USES A NON-APPROVED COMPONENT IN ITS FILTERS.

ALLTRONIC'S ABILITY TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT CONCERNS THE FIRM'S RESPONSIBILITY AS A PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MUST MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION BEFORE HE CAN MAKE THE AWARD. DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATION SEC. 2-407.2 (1976 ED.) THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE GENERALLY WILL NOT REVIEW A PROTEST OF AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY, WHICH IS LARGELY A BUSINESS JUDGMENT, UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWING OF POSSIBLE FRAUD OR BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF PROCURING OFFICIALS OR THE SOLICITATION CONTAINS DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA WHICH ALLEGEDLY HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED. BRADFORD DYEING ASSOCIATION, INC., B-202241, MARCH 6, 1981, 81-1 CPD 182; X-TYAL INTERNATIONAL CORP., B-198802, MAY 22, 1980, 80-1 CPD 355. NEITHER EXCEPTION APPEARS TO EXIST HERE.

THE PROTEST THEREFORE IS DISMISSED.