Date: August 28, 1990
P.S. Protest Nos. 90-29, 90-32
PRINTCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
and
DODD TRUCKING & LEASING CO.
Solicitation Nos. 190-40-90 190-42-90 190-50-90
ON RECONSIDERATION
Dodd Trucking & Leasing Co. (Dodd) has timely requested reconsideration of our decision in Printco Enterprises, Inc. and Dodd Trucking & Leasing Co., P.S. Protest Nos. 90-29, 90-32, August 8, 1990, in which we denied the protests.
Printco Enterprises, Inc. (Printco) and Dodd timely protested individually the failure of the contracting officer at the Philadelphia Transportation Management Service Center to provide each with a copy of a solicitation or solicitations on which it was the incumbent contractor on one or more of the solicited segments. The protests were consolidated for decision due to the similarity of the issues presented.
In both protests, the protester alleged that it was not given an opportunity to bid on the solicitations, and asked that it be given the opportunity to bid on the solicitations or, in the alternative, that new solicitations be issued.
Our decision reviewed the facts in light of previous decisions of this office in circumstances similar to those raised by the protesters and determined that corrective action was not appropriate. The factors considered in determining the need for corrective action in light of this particular procurement deficiency are:
- Whether adequate competition was obtained;
- Whether the failure to comply with requirements intended to secure competition was inadvertent;
- Whether the offers received were at a reasonable price.
Moser Enterprises, P.S. Protest No. 89-31, June 9, 1989; Fumiye Ninomiya, P.S. Protest No. 88-74, November 22, 1988; Craig Pattison, P.S. Protest No. 87-115, December 29, 1987. In reviewing these factors, we found that adequate competition was obtained (35-60 requests for the solicitation packages and 2-7 offers per segment); that the failure to send the solicitations to Printco and to Dodd did not appear to be other than inadvertent; and that there was no suggestion that the prices offered on the segments were unreasonable.
In its request for reconsideration, Dodd refers us to Procurement Manual 12.4.5 e. which states that a complete solicitation package must be mailed to incumbent contractors whether the contractor is performing on a regular, temporary, or emergency contract. Dodd argues that the mandatory nature of the cited section requires resolicitation of the service.
Dodd does not offer a basis for our reversal of the initial decision. The decisions cited as precedent in our initial decision were made on facts similar to those in this case. The requirement that the incumbent contractor on a route be mailed a copy of a solicitation resoliciting service is a regulation with which we are familiar, e.g., Moser, supra, was decided under its purview.
Not all violations of our procurement regulations can be corrected by this office. See, e.g., Inforex Corporation, et. al., P.S. Protest No. 78-12, June 26, 1978. Where, as here, offers were received on the solicitations, and those prices were exposed, in the absence of a showing of inadequate competition or deliberate bias, resolicitation is inappropriate because of the potential harm to the bidders.
The request for reconsideration is denied.
William J. Jones
Associate General Counsel
Office of Contracts and Property Law
[checked against original JLS 6/4/93]