B-57857, JUNE 28, 1946, 25 COMP. GEN. 914

B-57857, JUNE 28, 1946, 25 COMP. GEN. 914

ADVERTISING - SUFFICIENCY - NATION-WIDE STENOGRAPHIC SERVICES THE ACTION OF PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS IN DENYING THE REQUEST OF AN OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE PROSPECTIVE BIDDER FOR AN INVITATION TO BID ON NATION- WIDE STENOGRAPHIC REPORTING SERVICES ON THE GROUND THAT 12 YEARS AGO IT PERFORMED A PARTICULAR CONTRACT IN A MANNER DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3709, REVISED STATUTES, AND CREDIT FOR ANY PAYMENTS MADE UNDER A PURPORTED CONTRACT AWARDED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WILL BE WITHHELD IN THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICER'S ACCOUNTS. 25 COMP. GEN. 859, AMPLIFIED.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL YATES TO THE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, JUNE 28, 1946:

THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 14, 1946, RELATIVE TO OFFICE LETTER OF JUNE 12, 1946, B-57857, 25 COMP. GEN. 859, WHEREIN YOU WERE ADVISED THAT CREDIT WOULD BE WITHHELD IN THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICER'S ACCOUNT FOR ANY PAYMENTS MADE UNDER A CERTAIN CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE ALDERSON COMPANY AND COVERING THE FURNISHING OF NATION-WIDE STENOGRAPHIC REPORTING SERVICES FOR THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD DURING THE FISCAL YEAR 1947. THE BASIS FOR SUCH HOLDING WAS THE DISCLOSURE THAT AT LEAST ONE PROSPECTIVE BIDDER WAS DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF COMPETING FOR THE CONTRACT IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 3709, REVISED STATUTES. ALSO, IT APPEARING THAT BIDS WERE SOLICITED FROM ONLY FOUR FIRMS FOR SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED ON A NATION-WIDE BASIS, YOU WERE ADVISED OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE NEEDS OF THE SERVICE BE SO ADVERTISED AS TO REASONABLY ASSURE THE GOVERNMENT THE BENEFITS WHICH FLOW FROM FULL AND FREE COMPETITION.

IT APPEARS FROM YOUR LETTER AND FROM INFORMAL ADVICE RECEIVED FROM AN OFFICIAL OF YOUR AGENCY THAT THE ACME REPORTING COMPANY WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE FOR THE CONTRACT INVOLVED FOR THE REASON THAT IT REPRESENTS A FIRM WHOSE WORK FOR THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD UNDER A REPORTING CONTRACT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1934 PROVED UNSATISFACTORY. YOU STATE THAT THE BOARD RECEIVED MANY COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CHARACTER OF THE WORK OF THE SAID FIRM AND, IN ADDITION, CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES WERE BROUGHT TO LIGHT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SAID CONTRACT.

WHILE IT MAY BE, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THAT THE PROTESTING COMPANY REPRESENTS A FIRM WHICH ON THE ABOVE REFERRED TO OCCASION FURNISHED UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE, NEVERTHELESS, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE ACTION OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD IN DENYING THE REQUEST OF THE ACME REPORTING COMPANY FOR AN INVITATION TO BID WAS IMPROPER AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW IN RESPECT TO ADVERTISING. THE MERE FACT THAT 12 YEARS AGO IT PERFORMED A PARTICULAR CONTRACT IN A MANNER DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY CONSTITUTES NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR A PRESUMPTION THAT THE ACME REPORTING COMPANY OR THE FIRM IT REPRESENTS IS NOT IN A POSITION TO FURNISH ADEQUATE REPORTING SERVICES AT THIS TIME. TO THE CONTRARY, INFORMAL ADVICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE THAT THE SAID COMPANY RECENTLY HAS COMPETED FOR AND HAS SECURED CERTAIN REPORTING CONTRACTS LET BY OTHER GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OFFICE ANY INSTANCE, OTHER THAN THAT TO WHICH YOU REFER, WHERE THE SERVICES OF THE FIRM WERE DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY OR THAT THERE EXISTED ANY IRREGULARITIES IN PERFORMANCE SUCH AS MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THERE APPEARS NO BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION DIFFERENT FROM THAT STATED IN MAY LETTER OF JUNE 12, 1946, IN VIEW OF WHICH I AGAIN HAVE TO ADVISE THAT CREDIT FOR ANY PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE CONTRACT INVOLVED WILL BE WITHHELD IN THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICER'S ACCOUNT.