Matter of: The Hoedads, Inc. File: B-258346 Date: October 11, 1994
Highlights
Hoedads challenges the award on the basis that Tree-O's bid was less than half the government estimate. Or even that the price is below the cost of performance. Is not a valid basis for protest. Properly may decide to submit a price that is extremely low. An agency decision that the contractor can perform the contract at the offered price is an affirmative determination of responsibility which we will not review absent a showing of possible fraud or bad faith on the part of procurement officials. Or that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation may have been misapplied. That Tree-O's bid is so low because Tree-O does not intend to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act. Whether or not Tree-O intends to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act provisions in the solicitation is also a matter of responsibility and.
Matter of: The Hoedads, Inc. File: B-258346 Date: October 11, 1994
DECISION
The Hoedads, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tree-O Construction, Inc., issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, under solicitation No. R6-6-94-124.
We dismiss the protest.
Hoedads challenges the award on the basis that Tree-O's bid was less than half the government estimate. A protester's claim that a bidder or offeror submitted an unreasonably low price--or even that the price is below the cost of performance--is not a valid basis for protest. A bidder or offeror, in its business judgment, properly may decide to submit a price that is extremely low. Diemaster Tool, Inc., B-238877, Apr. 5, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 375. An agency decision that the contractor can perform the contract at the offered price is an affirmative determination of responsibility which we will not review absent a showing of possible fraud or bad faith on the part of procurement officials, or that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation may have been misapplied. JWK Int'l Corp., B-237527, Feb 21, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 198.
Hoedads contends, however, that Tree-O's bid is so low because Tree-O does not intend to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act. Whether or not Tree-O intends to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act provisions in the solicitation is also a matter of responsibility and, as stated above, is not for our review.
The protest is dismissed.