1991 Digest
Protest of award of contract unit is dismissed. Where offeror is advised of award, time for protesting is not tolled by contracting officer’s failure to provide notice of award to protester’s counsel or protest regulations to protester. Review of evalution of offers fails to disclose any impropriety in evaluation; award of below-cost contract is permissible and common as to the services solicited.
Protest of amendments of solicitation for construction of postal facility is denied. Timeliness of protest of terms of amendment is measured from amendment’s receipt, not from previous oral advice of planned, but not yet accomplished, intention to amend; amendment was required by regulation to reflect Postal Service’s needs, and were appropriate even after initial offers had been received; regulation concerning cancellation of solicitation was not applicable; concerns of auction after public exposure of bids do not arise in the context of negotiated purchase; contention that amendments undermine procurement integrity are speculative and contrary to actual experience.
Protest of placement of ordering agreement for vehicle maintenance is dismissed in part and denied in part. Contentions that solicitation was ambiguous and failed to elaborate requirements are challenges to solicitation’s terms, untimely raised; contention that awardee may have understated prices does not preclude award.
Protest of award of contract for highway transportation contract is dismissed. Protest which challenges application of Service Contract Act to bidder proposing to use employees, but not to owner-operators, is protest of solicitation terms untimely raised subsequent to bid opening; jurisdiction is lacking to challenge Department of Labor’s implementation of the Act.
Protest of rejection as nonresponsible on solicitation for dog repellent spray is denied. Contracting officer’s conclusions based on pre-award survey as to offeror’s quality control system were reasonable; offeror failed to demonstrate that prior contract established record of performance supplying similar item; offeror’s failure to provide requested information justifies finding of nonresponsibility if other information fails to establish it. Contracting officer’s affirmative determination of awardee’s responsibility was abuse of discretion where record established lack of required MIL-I quality control system; if system was not required, solicitation should have been amended so to reflect; but protester would not have received award even if amendment had occurred
Protests of award of contract for wire buckles are dismissed and denied. Protest of rejection of proposal for technical unacceptability received more than ten working days after notice of that rejection is untimely; offers were properly found technically unacceptable for proposing something other than the product specified; acceptance of lower priced proposal one week late was consistent with regulation and contracting officer’s discretion; specification of patented item does not make specification restrictive, but availability of similar buckles in the marketplace suggests future purchases might use product description, rather than design specification; awardee’s failure to list exception to domestic source requirement obliges it to furnish domestic item, but matter is one of contract administration, not for protest review; where only one proposal is technically acceptable, Buy American price differential does not apply; unsupported claim of bias is rejected.
Protest of award of contract for highway mail transportation contract is denied. Challenge to affirmative determination of responsibility is not subject to review absent fraud, abuse of discretion, or failure to apply definitive responsibility criteria; decision to allow extended period between award and start of performance is business decision not to be overturned except for abuse; decision here was not unreasonable.
Protest of award of contract for asbestos abatement is denied. Determination that protester’s lower-priced offer was technically unacceptable was supported and was not arbitrary, where offer proposed to decontaminate ducts, rather than demolish and replace them as required; where nonconforming and unacceptable techniques are proposed, discussions need not be held to correct them; unsupported allegations of bad faith are rejected.
Protest of award for drive-through vehicle washing system is dismissed. Protest to General Counsel received more than ten working days after protester acknowledged receipt of contracting officer’s denial of its initial protest is untimely.
Award of contract for nestable pallets is dismissed in part and denied in part. Protest after award which challenges failure to include life cycle costs or pallet durability in evaluation criteria is untimely; solicitation’s warranty provision cannot be used as evaluation factor; contention that awardee’s pallet does not meet requirements is unsupported challenge of affirmative responsibility determination.
Protests of award of contract for replacement of air conditioning system are sustained. Protest is timely where record does not establish exact date notice of award was received; contracting officer’s failure to treat letter requesting reversal of decision to award to another as a protest tolled the 15 day after award standard; offerors contending their proposals were misevaluated had standing to protest. Offeror’s omission of progress schedule is easily remedied deficiency which should have occasioned discussions, offer evaluation in absence of procurement plan and scoring system was arbitrary; offeror’s furnished list of projects complied with solicitation requirement and should not have been downrated because it lacked details not requested by the solicitation; offers are to be reevaluated and award reconsidered.
Protest of determination of nonresponsibility as highway transportation contractor is denied. Contracting officer’s conclusion that bidder with managerial experience in shipping and receiving lacks managerial experience for contract is not arbitrary where bidder’s pre-award survey comments demonstrate lack of planning and understanding of contract requirements; bidder’s termination for default four years before is too remote to justify determination, but may justify heightened inquiry about responsibility; contention that determination is product of age bias is outside protest review.
Protests of award of contract for air hub facility are dismissed in part and denied in part. Allegation that evaluation criteria were not ranked in order of relative importance is incorrect; there is no necessary correlation between the weight afforded a criterion and the differences which show up in the proposals; subcriteria were weighted consistently with the evaluation scheme; no substantial flaws were noted in the evaluation of the offers; protester has not met burden of showing cost evaluation was incorrect; protesters not directly in line for award if highest ranked proposal is rejected who do not challenge intervening proposals are not interested parties to challenge evaluation of lowest ranked proposal; contentions of bias are unsupported and rebutted.
Protest of noncompetitive award of contract for lease of postal station is sustained in part. Where protester, lessor of current facility, would not extend lease, noncompetitive award of temporary lease was justified, but in absence of rational justification, award of longer-term permanent lease was abuse of discretion. However, in the absence of a provision allowing termination of that lease, only relief available is direction not to exercise options beyond basic lease term
Protest against award of contract for roof replacement is denied. To the extent that the protest objects to the solicitation requirement that technical information about proposed "equal" roofing products must accompany the proposal, it is untimely raised after proposals are due; conclusion that protester did not furnish sufficient descriptive data demonstrating equal product’s suitability is not arbitrary or capricious; contention that project manager gave oral approval to equal product is inconsistent with solicitation admonition that oral representations are not binding.
Protest against award of contract for roof replacement is denied. To the extent that the protest objects to the solicitation requirement that technical information about proposed "equal" roofing products must accompany the proposal, it is untimely raised after proposals are due; conclusion that protester did not furnish sufficient descriptive data demonstrating equal product’s suitability is not arbitrary or capricious; contention that project manager gave oral approval to equal product is inconsistent with solicitation admonition that oral representations are not binding.
Protest of rejection of proposal for installation of fire alarm system is denied. Review of rejection of offers for technical unacceptability is limited to establishing reasonableness of contracting officer’s decision; where protester acknowledges that offered system was not listed under applicable Underwriters Laboratory standard, and offered system did not unequivocally offer a required backlit annunciator, proposal was properly found unacceptable; extensive communications with protester concerning its proposal were "discussions," not "clarifications," and should have occasioned discussions with other offerors, but failure does not affect the correctness of the rejection of the proposal.
On reconsideration, previous decision is adhered to where request merely reiterates basis for original protest, without factual or legal grounds warranting reversal or modification.
Protest of award of contract for vehicle repair and maintenance is dismissed. Contention that price offers should not have been calculated by adding towing charge and hourly rate is untimely raised; since solicitation set out the evaluation method, objections should have been presented before offers were due.
Protest of award of contract for automatic filing systems is denied. Acceptance of late offer only three days after offers were due was proper; issue of the suitability of awardee’s alternative to brand-name item is not reached, but solicitation was defective in failing to set out essential characteristics of the brand-name item and did not provide for offering equal items; but offered equal item cannot be determined not to met Postal Service’s minimum needs.
Protest of award of contract for telephone system is denied. Where oral solicitation is used, unsolicited protester cannot know terms of solicitation before offers are due, and protest may be timely raised after award when terms are known; under simplified purchasing, solicitation of three sources is sufficient for competition; specification of AT&T system was justified by desire to use substantial quantity of surplus AT&T equipment; decision to allow performance to proceed while protest was pending was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported.
Protest of award of contract for truck tractors is denied. Initial award on the basis of an ambiguous proposal which included prices with and without federal excise tax was improper, as was award on the basis of the lower, tax excluded price; cancellation of award and reopening of solicitation thereafter was permissible, but amendment stating offerors could confirm their previous offers or withdraw them, but not revise them, was confusing and incorrect, and awardee’s modification of offer in response to amendment was inconsistent with its terms, but protester was not prejudiced thereby since subsequent request for best and final offers constituted discussions in which protester could revise its offer, and did so. Offeror advised of other’s price who is given opportunity to revise its price cannot later claim prejudice from an auction; claim must be made before best and final offers are due. Since protester’s final offer raised its price, it was not influenced by the disclosure of the awardee’s initial price.
Protest of determination of nonresponsibility on contract for dual container collection mailboxes is denied. Determination based on offeror’s inability to meet five of seven stated elements of responsibility was justified by evidence of preaward survey and of offeror’s financial condition.
Protest of issuance of purchase order for computer software is denied. Protester’s substitution of quote for integrated software package instead of quote for individual programs is not an innovative or ingenious idea presenting issue of technical transfusion; allowing consideration of protester’s alternative required amendment of the solicitation allowing other quoters to propose on the same basis.
Protests of determinations of nonresponsibility on contracts for postal items and of noncompetitive award for mail collection boxes are denied. Determinations of nonresponsibility based on offeror’s lack of planning, poor performance on past postal contracts, lack of financial resources, and proposed use of subcontractor lacking necessary equipment, which protester did not controvert, were amply supported; urgency created by critical shortage of mail collection boxes justified noncompetitive purchase.
Protest of award of contract for hydraulic equipment maintenance and repair is denied. Fact that awardee’s offered hourly rate is slightly below Service Contract Act wage rate for the required services does not mean offeror will not comply with the Act; below-cost offer can be accepted if, as here, offeror is found responsible.
Protest of award of contract for food services is sustained. Award was not made on the basis of the highest evaluated point score, as the applicable regulation required, but instead on the basis of a "trade off" between the evaluated point score (including price) and a price analysis of specific food items; evaluations which gave high scores for information which offers failed to provide were arbitrary; it was error for contracting officer to seek oral clarifications of offers but to fail to provide those clarifications to the evaluators; remedy is to reevaluate offers correctly and make new award.
Protest of award of contract for food services is denied. Protester has failed to show that evaluation of proposals was arbitrary or unreasonable; under evaluation scheme, under evaluations scheme, higher commission rate did not require award; where award was without discussion, evaluators need not ask for information on training and sanitation, it was offeror’s obligation to provide them if it wished them considered.
Protest of award of contracts for post office telephone systems is denied. Technical proposals were properly evaluated; evidence supported conclusion that awardee’s technical proposal was superior to awardee’s; contention that awardee cannot perform is challenge to affirmative determination of responsibility which is not a sufficient ground for protest.
Issuance of purchase order for ink jet printers is sustained. Consideration of quotations from related offerors was not improper; quoters were not adequately informed of the order of importance of non-price evaluation factors; evaluation failed to take into account stated "delivery terms" factor; although costs of consumables were a factor, not all quotes were evaluated on that factor.
Protest of award of contract for cafeteria food services and satellite vending is dismissed in part and denied in part. Where offeror is advised only briefly of its elimination from the competitive range, protest of elimination subsequent to disclosure of further information after award is timely, but objection to solicitation’s evaluation process is not, as is belated objection to exclusion from site visit.; evaluation of protester’s offer was appropriate, although failure to visit offeror’s planned subcontractor was improper, no prejudice resulted.
Protest of the issuance of delivery order for microfiche processor equipment under a GSA FSS contract is denied. The decision to order from a schedule contract instead of procuring competitively is a business decision subject to review only for abuse of discretion; where requisition specifies schedule contractor’s item, contracting officer is unaware of suitable alternatives, and finds schedule price reasonable, decision to procure from schedule will not be challenged. Protester’s contention that it was misled by postal representatives does not establish intent or bad faith, and misunderstanding between protester and postal personnel does not affect procurement’s validity.
Protest of award of contract for postage validation imprinters is dismissed in part and denied in part. Contention that evaluation was flawed because it was not based on the exact prototypes previous tested is untimely raised, since offerors knew that specifications had changed and prototypes would require revision, basis for objection was apparent before offers were due. Whether awardee can meet technical specifications is a matter of contract administration not for consideration in protest process; challenge to determination of awardee’s technical acceptability is unsupported; contention that awardee’s price was unreasonably low does not establish basis to overturn evaluation of price reasonableness; while reopening discussions might have been better practice, contracting officer could resolve questions about lowest priced offeror’s price without discussions, and protester was not prejudiced since clarifications did not result in change in offeror’s price; strong disagreement with responsibility determination is not sufficient to overturn it.
Protest of award of contract for mailbags is denied. Decision to omit from solicitation information about prior award of contract for different mailbags was within contracting officer’s business discretion. as was acceptance of awardee’s late proposal modification; contention that procurement regulation should not provide for consideration of late amendments is not for consideration.
Protest of award of contract for construction and lease of postal facility is denied in part and dismissed in part. Protest of use of negotiated, rather than sealed-bid, method of solicitation is untimely raised after receipt of offers; protest of rejection of amended offer is untimely when made more than ten working days after offeror knew of rejection; contention that offers were improperly evaluated on the basis of an unstated evaluation factor, the extent of previous local contracting, is timely, and protester has standing to raise it; use of the unstated factor was improper, but awardee was otherwise entitled to award under solicitation terms.
Protest of bidder’s ineligibility for highway transportation contract is denied. Corporate bidder’s control by spouse of individual debarred by the Department of Labor for Service Contract Act violations, debarred individual’s former role as bidder’s operations manager, and spouse’s representation after bid opening that the debarred individual’s statements would represent both the bidder and the spouse supported conclusion that debarred individual had "substantial interest" in the bidder and that bidder thus was ineligible under Department of Labor rules; conclusion was not affected by Postal Service regulations concerning encouragement of participation of woman-owned businesses.
Protest that offer for ink jet sprayers was incorrectly evaluated is dismissed. Advise to protester in advance of the contract award that it would not receive the award because of its higher operating costs established time from which protester knew of basis for protest, and protest received more than ten working days thereafter was untimely.
Protest of terms of solicitation for nestable pallets is sustained in part. New contention raised in course of protest that solicitation is ambigous is untimely; contracting officer’s justification for price evaluation on initial price, rather than life cycle cost will not be disturbed; use of purchase, rather that lease-purchase terms, is not shown to be clearly unreasonable; consideration of environmental impacts of purchases are not for consideration in protest context; complaint that solicitation makes enforcement of one-year pallet warranty unenforceable by failing to require pallets to indicate their date of manufacture reveals inconsistency in solicitation which must be corrected.
Protest against determination of nonresponsibility on highway transportation contract is dismissed as untimely. Protest received by General Counsel thirteen working days after protester received contracting officer’s denial of its protest is late; earlier receipt of protest by Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals is not significant.
Protest of award of contract for DEC computer equipment is dismissed in part and denied in part. Protest that solicitation requirement that offeror be "authorized DEC distributor" required a first-tier relationship with manufacturer was protest against solicitation term and thus untimely after offers were received; requirement was not unduly restrictive; affirmative determination of awardee’s responsibility is not disturbed; claim of bad faith in change in required delivery schedule is inadequately supported only by allegations and assumptions.
Protest of determination that highway transportation bidder is ineligible is denied. Spouse of postal employee (postmaster leave relief replacement) is ineligible for award; eligibility is measured at time of bid opening; allowing spouse to elect to resign after bids are opened would violate firm bid rule; fact that other highway contractors with postal spouses are allowed under different circumstances does not require different result.
Protest contending that specification improperly limited offers for cargo vans to single vendor is dismissed. Where criticized vendor was not lowest-priced, and protester would not be in line for award if vendor was eliminated, resolution of the protest would be an academic exercise. Further, anti-trust contentions in protest are outside the protest process and do not require reporting a noncompetitive practice.
Protest of rejection of offer for reroofing project for failure to offer satisfactory substitute for brand-name item is denied. Protest filed within ten working days of notice of contracting officer’s denial of initial protest is timely; determination that substitute item’s warranty failed to meet unique feature’s of brand-name warranty beyond the minimum warranty requirements set out in solicitation was in error; but finding that substitute’s differences as to fascia supported determination; it is offeror’s burden to demonstrate substitute’s fitness; and discussions need not be held to resolve uncertainties if it does not.
Protest of elimination from competitive range for professional services contract is dismissed. Contention that insufficient time was allowed for the submission of additional information after discussions, raised more than a month after the submission was requested (and after additional material was submitted within the time allowed) is untimely.
Protest of determination of nonresponsibility with respect to a highway transportation contract is denied. Claims for breach of contract are not resolved under protest procedures. Fact of protester’s termination for default under prior contract and of poor performance under another supports the nonresponsibility finding.
Protest against award of contract for food vending services to the Randolph-Sheppard Act state licensing agency is denied. Although evaluators incorrectly evaluated offers on the basis of criteria other than those established by solicitation, protester was not harmed since state agency would have been found within the competitive range and would have been received the Act’s priority had offers been properly evaluated. Incumbency cannot serve as a substitute for a technical proposal consistent with the solicitation’s requirements.
Protest of award of a contract for construction of new postal facility is denied. Contracting officer need not locate and retrieve technical information submitted with respect to a separate project to evaluate offeror’s response to this project; nor need contracting officer pursue offerors to obtain submissions which the solicitation required, and contracting officer may award on the basis of proposals as received without discussions.
Protest against terms of vehicle washing solicitation is dismissed. Claim that solicitation is ambiguous in describing its scope, first submitted after offers are due, is untimely.
Protest of determination of nonresponsibility with respect to a highway transportation contract is denied. Claims for breach of contract are not resolved under protest procedures. Fact of protester’s termination for default under prior contracts may support the nonresponsibility finding even though the validity of the terminations is being challenged.
Protest of extension of contract for operator-assisted telephone service is sustained. Purchase of this service is not governed by the Administrative Support Manual’s directions on acquiring pay telephones, but by the Procurement Manual. Extension of contract was a de facto non-competitive procurement, but without the justification required for such a purchase, and no reasonable basis for the award was shown in the course of the protest. The requirement is to be resolicited.
Protest of terms of solicitation for package bar code scanning systems is denied. Postal-designed specification for label printer and applicator is not unduly restrictive where it came after unsuccessful competition for vendor-designed systems. That specification may preclude individual offerors from proposing does not establish restrictiveness if specification is otherwise reasonable and reflects legitimate needs. Reasonableness of the in-house design need not be reevaluated on the basis of the protester’s later-developed technology, nor need award be delayed to allow evaluation of that technology.
Protest of terms of solicitation for highway transportation of mail in Puerto Rico is dismissed in part and denied in part. Contentions involving Postal Service’s failure to renew protester’s contract are not for consideration under protest procedures. Contracting officer has adequately justified the position that the tariffs established by the Puerto Rico Public Service Commission with respect to transportation from the San Juan docks are not applicable to the Postal Service’s transportation of mail from those docks.
Protest of award for computer assisted retrieval system is denied. Where awardee offered one of three identified brand-name items, determination that its system was technically acceptable was reasonable, and award on the basis of price was appropriate where solicitation listed no evaluation criteria other than price.
Protest against award of vehicle washing contract is dismissed; requirement for insurance is contract term, not solicitation provision, and compliance with the term is a matter of contract administration not reviewable under protest process.
Protest of award of airline system contract is denied. Where protester is not timely informed of contract award as required, protest subsequent to eventual notice is timely. Challenge to awardee’s eligibility under solicitation terms is governed by rules regarding special criteria of eligibility (definitive criteria of responsibility), and record supports contracting officer’s determination that criteria were met. Contention that awardee is not in compliance with requirements of its operating certificate are for the Department of Transportation to resolve.
Protest of award of contracts for items of postal furniture is dismissed. Protest was received more than ten working days after protester received its first notice of the awards, and the second corrected notice did not affect the basis of its protest. Further, offeror who did not propose to furnish case dividers is not interested party to challenge award for that item.
Protest of award of contract for Image Processing Subsystem of Remote Bar Coding System is denied. Protester challenging evaluation of proposals which would have been in line for award if its proposal were evaluated as asserted has standing. Award on the basis of evaluation factors in descending order of importance but without assigned weights must not afford any factor substantially more weight than others, so fact that protester was highest scored on first factor did not require award on that basis. Where solicitation provided for evaluation on the basis of life-cycle cost, contracting officer improperly applied unstated factors to diminish the differences in evaluated life-cycle costs, but error did not affect protester's ranking. Conclusion that lowest offer, within funding limitation and near postal estimate was more reasonable than protester's higher price for arguably more sophisticated system was not arbitrary. Protester's offer was properly evaluated as to technical experience, and higher-ranked offeror's scores were not improperly impacted by their prior incumbency. It was within bounds of discretion to conclude that other offeror's advantages in second and third evaluation factor outweighed protester's advantage in first factor. Discussions which disclosed perceived unattractiveness and unreasonableness of offeror's price were meaningful even though they did not disclose that price exceeded the funding limit. Contention that awardee received unfair advantage from award of developmental contract fails because prejudice to protester is not established.
Request for reconsideration by contract awardee is denied. Protest regulation does not require General Counsel to obtain information which the contracting officer has not supplied and parties aware of the omission in the course of the protest cannot base reconsideration on it; where process of determining competitive range did not with regulation there is nothing to which a presumption of correctness can attach; contention that protester lacked standing is untimely raised; as is contention of impropriety in holding separate conferences.
Protest of exclusion from competitive range for coin counting and sorting machines and of cancellation of separate solicitation for such machines is sustained in part. Complaint about adequacy of debriefing is not for consideration in protest process. Exclusion from competitive range for deficiencies which the protester asserts are minor, and for which the contracting officer did not support his conclusions that they were severe, was unreasonable; since proposal was not so unacceptable or deficient that a whole new proposal would be required. Contracting officer is directed not to award option quantity for the awarded contract. Cancellation of separate solicitation was inappropriate; the contradictory, mutually exclusive, and unsatisfactory reasons offered to justify the cancellation fail to provide a reasoned basis for it. Reinstatement is the appropriate remedy for an improperly canceled solicitation.
Request for reconsideration by awardee and contracting officer is denied when requests provide no new factual material and the legal issues raised are insufficient. Specific contention that conduct of separate protest conferences constituted ex parte communications is untimely raised and without merit.
Protest against determination of protester's nonresponsibility and of award of coin counting and sorting machines to another is sustained in part. Contracting officers must consider all information available concerning responsibility; where offeror responds to pre-award survey suggesting nonresponsibility; contracting officer unreasonably gave no weight to the material subsequently provided as to the performance of the protester's foreign subcontractor, its quality control systems, the availability of storage space and additional personnel; the conclusion that the QA manual was unsatisfactory was in error; since no harm arose from late delivery of customer list; the delay did not justify the determination; adverse information concerning performance on contract dissimilar to that solicited should not have been considered; and determination based on Walsh-Healey Act made inconsistently with applicable regulations was improper. In tradeoff between harm to protester and degree of awardee's performance; contracting officer is directed not to exercise options in awardee's contract pending a proper determination of the protester's responsibility.
Protest of award of contract for vehicle washing services is dismissed as untimely. Objections to terms of amendment were not made before revised proposals were received; other issues were not raised within ten working days after they were know; contracting personnel's oral advice which delayed protests could not have been relied upon; but oral advice of contract award did begin time for protesting award. Reaching that last conclusion is not inherently unfair, since the two oral notifications involved different issues and implicated different policies.
Protest of determination of highway mail contract bidder's nonresponsibility is denied. Finding was justified given husband's recent termination for default on another contract, notwithstanding his contesting that default, because of his significant intended role in contract performance; substitution of wife or the marital community as the bidder cannot avoid this result.
Protest of determination of highway mail contract bidder's nonresponsibility is denied. Finding was justified given husband's recent termination for default on another contract, notwithstanding his contesting that default, because of his significant intended role in contract performance; substitution of wife or the marital community as the bidder cannot avoid this result.
Protest of award of a community postal unit is denied. Third-ranked offeror who contends that both higher-ranked offerors are ineligible for contract has standing to protest, but contention that highest-ranked offeror is proscribed from award because she is the child of a postal employee fails because she is neither "minor child" nor "member of immediate family" of postal employee by reason of her residence.
Protest of award of contract for travel management center operation is denied. Timeliness of protest of elimination from negotiated competition before award may depend on the communication of basis for elimination at subsequent debriefing; failure to provide financial plan and financial statement and failure to provide other than cursory responses to other sections justified evaluation score; and incumbency need not be recognized as substitute for a responsive technical proposal.
Request for reconsideration is denied which does not specify errors of law in prior decision or identify new information not previously considered. Disagreement with conclusions reached is not basis for reconsideration; and successful proposals are not made available for point-by-point criticism by unsuccessful offerors.
Protest against award of contract for warehouse services dismissed in part and denied in part. Protest against cancellation of prior solicitation is untimely; contracting officer's retention of offers when solicitation was canceled after offers were received is not an abuse of discretion and is not sufficient basis for claim of bad faith; complaints about technical evaluation of proposal deal with issues which were not identified in the solicitation, and thus are now untimely; and protester's incumbency cannot be relied on as substitute for a fully responsive technical proposal.
Protest against determination of protester's nonresponsibility is denied. A bidder's failure to provide financial information uniquely within its purview justifies the finding if information from other sources is insufficient to establish its responsibility.
Back to Purchasing Protest Decisions Homepage[139]