Protest of Contract Award for Microwave Communications Systems

A firm protested a contract awarded by the Sheriff's Department of Chautauqua County, New York, in a procurement funded under a Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) grant awarded to the State of New York Division of Criminal Justice Services. The county was a subgrantee. A prior complaint by the protester to GAO concerning this same procurement resulted in a resolicitation of the requirement for a microwave communications system. The protester registered numerous complaints concerning the timeliness of the awardee's bid, its offer, inadequate competition, inadequate bid preparation time, procurement procedures, prejudice towards the protester on the part of the county, and ambiguities in the procurement specifications. The protester believed the award to be improper and requested that the procurement be resolicited. GAO limits its consideration of complaints concerning contracts under federal grants to determining whether there has been compliance with applicable statutory requirements, agency regulations, and grant terms. All parties agreed that under an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular, the grantee is permitted to use its own procurement procedures which reflect applicable state and local law, rules, and regulations as long as the procurement adheres to certain minimum federal standards. The law which both the state and LEAA cited as controlling in this matter requires the use of formal advertising to solicit bids which must be published in the local newspapers designated to publish legal notices at least 5 days prior to bid opening. The county complied with this. On the basis of affidavits from people present at bid opening, it was concluded that the awardee's bid was timely received. A cover letter accompanying the bid clearly acknowledged the receipt of the amendment in question. Since the protester did not submit a bid, alleged failure to issue the amendment on the part of the county did not prejudice the protester. Where a procurement is advertised in accordance with state law and federal requirements, the only bid received was reasonable, and there was no evidence of a deliberate effort to preclude the protester from competition, GAO will not object to funding the contract under the grant. GAO found no abuse of discretion by the subgrantee in establishing the time period for preparation of bids since the protester had competed in the original solicitation and the technical changes for this procurement were not extensive.