Skip to main content

B-229988, Mar 8, 1988, 88-1 CPD 240

B-229988 Mar 08, 1988
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Allegation Substantiation - Burden of Proof DIGEST: Allegation that awardee was afforded an opportunity to review the protester's proposal is regarded as mere speculation where no evidence is submitted to support the allegation. ICS contends that the source selection process was compromised by exposure of its proposal. The incumbent Bionetics' site manager stated that he had been shown ICS's proposal during the evaluation phase of source selection and that it was too close to Bionetics' proposal for comfort. Bionetics would have had an unfair advantage by having the opportunity to adjust its manning plan and cost to come in below ICS's best and final offer. ICS has presented no probative evidence that Bionetics was afforded an opportunity to review its proposal.

View Decision

B-229988, Mar 8, 1988, 88-1 CPD 240

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Allegation Substantiation - Burden of Proof DIGEST: Allegation that awardee was afforded an opportunity to review the protester's proposal is regarded as mere speculation where no evidence is submitted to support the allegation.

Instrument Control Service:

Instrument Control Service (ICS) protests the award of a contract to the Bionetics Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F42650 87-R- 0057, issued by the Ogden Air Logistics Center, U.S. Air Force, to operate and maintain the Precision Measurement Evaluation Laboratory (PMEL) at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. ICS contends that the source selection process was compromised by exposure of its proposal.

We dismiss the protest.

ICS alleges that, according to a source at Hill Air Force Base, the incumbent Bionetics' site manager stated that he had been shown ICS's proposal during the evaluation phase of source selection and that it was too close to Bionetics' proposal for comfort. ICS contends that, if the Bionetics manager had seen its technical proposal and manning plan prior to the best and final offer submission, Bionetics would have had an unfair advantage by having the opportunity to adjust its manning plan and cost to come in below ICS's best and final offer.

The Air Force reports that it interviewed the Bionetics site manager, all members of the technical evaluation team, and the two clerical personnel assigned to the PMEL branch. The site manager emphatically denied ICS's allegation, and statements by the other personnel indicated that no compromise in source selection took place.

ICS has presented no probative evidence that Bionetics was afforded an opportunity to review its proposal. Without such evidentiary support, we think that ICS's allegation is speculative. Electronics in Medicine, Inc., B-225388, Dec. 24, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 716. We note that the fact that the successful offeror, as here, reduces its price in the course of making its best and final offer does not establish that prices have been revealed. Key Book Service, Inc., B-226775, Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 454.

ICS has requested reimbursement for its proposal preparation costs and its anticipated profits. Since ICS's protest is dismissed, there is no decision on the merits and thus, no basis for award of costs. Brownell & Company, Inc.-- Request for Reconsideration, B-225784.4, Aug. 20, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 182. Further, there is no legal authority that permits the recovery of anticipated profits, even in the presence of wrongful action. Consolidated Devices, Inc., B-228065, Aug. 24, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 201.

ICS's oritest is dismissed and the claim denied.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs