1992 Digest

Protest against the award of contract for security guard services is sustained. While contracting officer may defer to requiring activity with respect to responsibility determination, such deference must be reasoned. Where solicitation fails to establish requirement for contractor to provide staffing in excess of that specified, it is inappropriate to find protester nonresponsible on the basis of such a requirement. Conclusion that offeror lacks contingency plan to deal with internal staff shortages was unreasonable in view of offeror's demonstration of past satisfactory performance in similar circumstances.

Protest against award of contract for badge clip holders is sustained in part. Protester offered non-domestic sourced item at lower price than awardee's price for domestic item, protester's price was higher than awardee's price when 6% Buy American differential was calculated, and awardee subsequently indicated intention to furnish non-domestic item. Where awardee failed to identify non-domestic origin of offered item, contracting officer had no reason to question the domestic status of the item, but given awardee's subsequent unwillingness to supply domestic item, its contract may be terminated and award made on the basis of protester's lower-priced item.

Protest against cancellation of a solicitation for rubbish removal services is denied. Where record demonstrates serious internal mishandling of the solicitation, there is doubt about the fairness of the competition which justifies cancellation of solicitation. Because offers in negotiated procurements are not exposed, standards for their cancellation are less stringent than those for advertised procurements. Offeror's concern that its proposal may have been exposed is unsupported on the record.

Protest against the evaluation of offers for BMC and AMTRAK containers is denied. Where solicitation called for detailed information, it was appropriate to exclude offeror from competitive range which did not supply that information, the omissions suggested a lack of understanding of the requirements, correcting the omissions would require an essentially new proposal, and proposal failed to offer significant cost savings. Contention that offer must be considered because similar offer was previously considered fails; similarity of solicitations is not established, and different circumstances in the course of the two procurements could have affected results.

Protest against award of contract to supply body armor is sustained in part. Where solicitation called for body armor by brand name and specific model number, information that protester's different model number did not meet standard for body armor did not justify rejection of offer for the model number specified; inclusion of brand-name purchase descriptions is Postal Service determination that those brand-name items will meet its needs, evaluation of samples of the brand-name items is inconsistent with use of purchase descriptions.

Protest against the award of air taxi contracts is dismissed. Initial protest which contested award was a "protective protest lacking any stated grounds; information subsequently learned after response to FOIA request is untimely. Bidder may furnish information demonstrating its ability to perform after bid opening, as it goes to responsibility; challenge of affirmative determination of responsibility is not for review absent contentions of fraud or bad faith.

Protest against determination of nonresponsibility of supplier of locking cord fasteners is denied. Areas of disagreement between protester and the quality specialist who conducted the preaward survey do not invalidate the overall adequacy of the survey, which justified the determination of nonresponsibility. Protester's allegations of bias do not establish irrefutable proof of malicious intent; contention that awardee cannot perform challenges an affirmative determination of responsibility which is not for review.

Request for reconsideration is denied where points raised were previously asserted; contentions raised in reconsideration are rebutted. New contention that inclusion on DOT list should be measured from date of solicitation, not bid opening date, is not for consideration, but is also incorrect.

Protest against the determination that bidder was nonresponsible with respect to highway mail transportation contract is denied. Responsibility of new corporate bidder properly included experience of its president under previous contracts held as sole proprietor, president's inclusion on DOT unsatisfactory list is sufficient to preclude award, failure of Postal Service to novate prior contracts to corporation not relevant to determination of responsibility nor subject to protest jurisdiction. The August, 1992, change in policy regarding the short-term renewal of contracts with contractors on the DOT list was not relevant to the renewal of the president's contracts before that date, but renewal decisions are, in any event, outside protest jurisdiction.

Protest against the terms of an amendment to a solicitation for automated cartridge tape libraries is denied. Amendment made substantive change to solicitation, and thus was subject to challenge, but protester failed to show unreasonableness of contracting officer's justification for its requirements. Further, the time allowed for the submission of offers was sufficient. Affected offeror, aware of amendment's change prior to its issuance, was able to submit timely offer and no other offerors objected to time allowed for proposal submission.

Minority enterprise's protest against disqualification from competition for vehicle tires is dismissed and denied. Where solicitation required offered tires to be those identified on a qualified products list (QPL), contracting officer could not waive QPL requirement for protester without revising solicitation for all offerors. Contention that QPL requirement is unduly restrictive is untimely raised. Allegation that other offerors were allowed to correct deficiencies as to state waste taxes is unaccompanied by evidence of malicious intent or bad faith.

Protests against the evaluation of offers and award of contracts for two types of Express Mail labels are denied. While review of the evaluations of the unit-style label offers discloses some errors, no basis to overturn the evaluation was established, and contracting officer was within his discretion consistent with the evaluation scheme in awarding contract to higher-scored technical offer at higher price. Evaluation of second protester's offers for continuous-style labels was flawed; some problems were resolved in its BAFO, but failure to evaluate alternate proposals individually was incorrect. However, even if afforded credit for its alternate proposals, protester's score would have been only slightly higher than awardee's, and the greater significance given price for closely-ranked proposals would have precluded award to significantly higher-priced protester. Claim that awardee's price was unreasonably low fails for lack of showing of bad faith or fraud in its evaluation; awardee vigorously defended its price in response to inquiry.

Interested party's request for reconsideration is denied. Its contentions that the trip schedule provisions could have been made clearer does not establish that they were ambiguous, and fact that other solicitations used the more preferable term "tandem-axle trailer" was not particularly relevant here, in face of contracting officer's evidence of the use of "two-axle trailer" in solicitations without confusion.

Protest against the terms of a solicitation for "as needed" highway mail transportation service is denied. Solicitation's identification of trips as "as needed" and identification of sample schedule as "representative" are sufficient to avoid ambiguity; while solicitation's reference to "two-axle tractor," taken alone, might be ambiguous, the payload requirement makes it clear that a truck with two rear axles is required. speculation.

Protest against the cancellation of invitation for bid for "as needed" highway mail transportation service from printer's plant after bid opening is denied. Invitation was ambiguous as to whether it sought a single price per trip for two trips of significantly different lengths or separate prices for the two trips; the ambiguity and conflicting advice offered to bidders by contracting personnel were adequate justification for the cancellation.

Protest by partnership against determination of its nonresponsibility for highway mail transportation contract is denied. Where, in the course of pre-award survey, in response to postal inquiries, bidder substantially revised numerous aspects of its bid worksheet, contracting officer could have reasonable concern about bidder's understanding of the requirement and its ability to accomplish it with the funds available. Bidder's verbal assurances did not overcome those concerns. Contention that the determination resulted from the women-owned nature of the partnership is unsupported

Protest against award of contract for conversion of information systems from one computer language to another is dismissed. Protest filed more than ten working days after protester knew of the basis for its protest is untimely. On the merits, contracting officer need not award solely on the basis of price to a technically unacceptable offeror; attack on awardee's ability to perform is a challenge to an affirmative determination of responsibility not for review.

Protest against the award of a network air contract is dismissed and denied. Fifth-ranked offeror has standing to challenge evaluation of its offer, where proposal would have been eligible for award if higher-rated. Contention of bias toward awardee is insufficiently supported; contention that debriefing was improperly conducted was based on non-binding regulation, and any errors were corrected in protest process. Review of evaluation supports contracting officer's award decision; evaluators' scores were well within their discretion.

Protest against cancellation of solicitation by failing to request further extensions of offers is dismissed. In the absence of further postal request for extension, protester knew as of date to which offer had last been extended that offer would lapse. Timeliness of protest is measured from that date, so protest well subsequent to that date is untimely. Where potential interested party in a protest does not participate in it, there is no obligation to provide it a copy of the decision on the protest.

Protest against terms of solicitation for printed wiring boards and cables is dismissed. Protest against terms filed following time set for the receipt of proposals is untimely. On the merits, claim that amendment did not allow sufficient time for offerors to respond would not be meritorious; issue is not whether all offerors timely received amendment, but whether adequate competition and reasonable prices were received, as they were. Amendment made minor changes with small effect on proposals, and offerors believed to be affected could have submitted late revisions. Finally, claim that extension of delivery schedule restricted competition would not have prevailed; contracting officer justified need for extension and failed to show it was unreasonable.

Protest against determination that bidder on highway mail transportation contract is ineligible is denied. Bidder who is a "postmaster replacement" at the time bids are opened is a Postal Service employee for the purposes of the provision precluding such employees from receiving contracts; bidder's reliance on advice of unauthorized postal employee does not allow award.

Protest against the terms of solicitation for safety strobe lights is dismissed. Protest against requirement that lights have an anodized aluminum case involved matter which was apparent prior to the date that proposals were due, and is untimely raised subsequent to the date set for the receipt of offers.

Protest against determination of bidder's nonresponsibility for poor performance is dismissed when protest objects to determination but is devoid of allegations or arguments why the determination was erroneous. In any event, recent poor performance on another contract is sufficient to support the determination.

Request for reconsideration is denied. Contention that contracting officer failed to solicit sufficient information from bidder in pre-award process was raised and considered in previous decision; contention that contract specialist was biased against protester is unsupported by evidence of "specific and malicious intent to harm."

Protest against a determination of nonresponsibility with respect to highway mail transportation contract is denied. Contracting officer's determination was not unreasonable. We will not substitute our views for his conclusion that protester's background and training was insufficient to allow him to supervise the route from a remote location; it was reasonable for the contracting officer to take into account the seven-hour travel time between the protester's location and the route; and allegations of impropriety arising out of the conduct of pre-award interviews with multiple bidders before award is unsupported by factual evidence of wrongdoing.

Protest against the award of contract for neighborhood collection and delivery box units is sustained. Where solicitation contained no evaluation advice other than that award would be made in 100-box units on the basis of lowest unit price, or in the aggregate, and offerors could quote on three bases (FOB Origin, palletized; FOB Origin, non-palletized; and FOB Destination, palletized), it was improper to award only on the basis of FOB Origin, non-palletized, prices, and to award on the basis of a "mix" of box unit types not specified. Further, award should not have been made for less that total quantities on the basis of the aggregate prices. That portion of the award for units not yet delivered is to be terminated, and the quotations for that quantity reevaluated as contemplated by the solicitation, or the requirement resolicited.

Of two protests against the technical evaluation of joint ventures' offers to construct a delivery distribution center, one is denied, the other sustained. Evaluators' conclusions that minority partner of first joint venturer lacked adequate comparable work experience was reasonable when proposal showed only one project in size range related to work to be performed; evaluators did not compare protester's experience to that of other offerors. Evaluators' conclusions that minority partner of second joint venturer lacked adequate comparable work experience and that its reference check was "inconclusive" was not supported by substantial evidence. Contracting officer also erred by conducting discussions with eventual awardee and allowed it to revise its proposal without holding similar discussions with other awardees, and otherwise treated the eventual awardee and the protesters differently. However, absent persuasive evidence of bad faith and given the significant degree of contract performance, no substantive relief is granted.

Incumbent highway contractor's protest of the failure to provide him a copy of the resolicitation package for the route is denied. Record establishes that adequate competition was obtained, the failure to solicit the incumbent was inadvertent, and the bids received were at a reasonable price.

Protest against the terms of a solicitation for air compressor, filters, and air dryers is denied. Contracting officer established prima facie explanation for the three requirements which the protester challenged, and that while the protester had disputed that explanation, it had not shown it unreasonable. This was the case even as to those elements which the contracting officer had previously (P.S. Protest No. 92-09) agreed were restrictive, but for which several offers were subsequently received. The fact that other post offices were using air compressor systems which did not meet the requirements specified here did not make the requirement here objectionable.

Protester's request for reconsideration of portion of decision dismissing protest as untimely is denied. Protester has not shown why it would not have been possible for her to determine, before bids were due, that the solicitation's enumeration of the boxes to be served was erroneous, but even delay in obtaining information which would allow a protest does not allow waiver of the time limits for protests.

Protest of low bidder on highway box delivery contract against contracting officer's refusal to allow her bid to be withdrawn on the basis of mistake is dismissed and denied. To the extent that the protest contends that the solicitation understated the number of boxes to be served is untimely raised after bids were due. The solicitation put the burden on the bidders to examine the route and to determine for themselves its features which would impact their ability to perform; the bidder's failure to do so is not the sort of mistake which can be corrected or from which relief can be granted.

Protest against the terms of a solicitation for the operation of an overnight air transportation hub is denied. Contracting officer has explained need for a specific degree of sortation accuracy, and record does not establish that it is clearly unreasonable. Second protester's objection to failure of missort rate to allow for seasonal volume adjustments is untimely raised after proposals were due; additional issues raised in the course of protests must meet timeliness requirements independently.

Protest against award of emergency contract for air transportation service is sustained. Operation on route requires FAA exemption for use of "drift-down" procedures available for cargo (but not passenger) operation, but solicitation requires operation to passenger standards; Postal Service's prior unknowing acceptance of nonconforming service does not warrant knowing waiver of contract requirements.

Protest against rejection of qualified bid for air taxi mail transportation service is denied. Letter accompanying the bid taking exception to requirement for aircraft autopilot and route- and airport-checked pilots was requested for deviation which conditioned its bid, subsequently letter removing conditions cannot be considered, and was not a "late modification," and initial request was properly not considered under mistake-in-bid procedures.

Request for reconsideration is denied where points raised were previously asserted; contentions raised in reconsideration are rebutted.

Protest against determination of nonresponsibility is denied. Responsibility of new corporate bidder properly included experience of its president under previous contracts held as sole proprietor, president's inclusion on DOT unsatisfactory list is sufficient to preclude award, failure of Postal Service to novate prior contracts to corporation not relevant to determination of responsibility nor subject to protest jurisdiction, information on performance of other contracts was properly considered, as was bidder's failure to provide requested information on its interrelated finances.

Protest against exclusion from competitive range for contract to produce and print guide to U.S. stamps is dismissed, denied. Protester's disagreements with technical evaluation do not establish that the evaluation was arbitrary, it was reasonable for evaluators to take spelling and grammar into account in evaluating sample text, possible lack of credit for experience in resumes did not prejudice protester, contracting officer is not guarantor of receipt of amendments, protester's minority status does not warrant enhanced consideration, and award at additional cost over protester's was not inconsistent with evaluation scheme.

Protest against award of food services contract is denied, dismissed. Complaints that changes in requirements necessitated pre-proposal conference, solicitation provisions were incorrect, and evaluation scheme was disadvantageous are untimely raised; contention that option should have been exercised rather than new solicitation issued is not within protest jurisdiction; fourth most advantageous offeror lacks standing to challenge award to most advantageous while not challenging intervening offerors.

Contracting officer's request for reconsideration of previous decision sustaining protest is denied. Contrary to contracting officer's assertion, protest record does not support contention that contracting officer or a senior management source selection authority adequately justified source selection; documents not previously provided may not now be proffered to do so, and contracting officer may not defend decision on basis that source selection authority need not justify its choice.

Protest against award of contract for warehousing services is sustained; record fails to reveal a reasonable factual basis for the contracting officer's conclusion that awardee's proposal, higher priced than protester's, was technically superior, where proposal evaluators rated protester's technical score higher than awardee's. While contracting officer need not agree with evaluators, he must explain the reasons for the disagreement, and here he has not.

Highway contractor's protest against determination of nonresponsibility is dismissed. After contracting officer denied protester's initial protest, protester wrote contracting officer requesting that its protest be forwarded to Board of Contract Appeals for review. Protest regulations preclude contracting officer reconsideration of initial denials, so timeliness is measured from the date of the General Counsel's receipt of the subsequent protest, here more than ten working days after protester learned of initial protest denial. The substantive requirement which occasioned the determination, that the contractor not be listed as unsatisfactory by DOT, is a definitive responsibility criterion. While all responsibility criteria may be determined after bid opening, no particular time need be allowed to do so, solicitation did not preclude prompt award of contract to another, and protester's claims of favoritism to awardee are not supported.

Protest against award of contract for warehousing services is dismissed where protester, excluded from competitive range, was provided with a full explanation at that time, and did not protest within ten working days of receiving that explanation. Letter submitted at that time which did not object to reasons cited for its exclusion, but which complained about exclusion letter's tone and stated actions which it would take was not a protest. Record suggests that offer, which was four times higher than next lowest offer, was properly excluded from competitive range.

Protests against various terms of solicitation for contract for air transportation services through a postal hub are denied; contracting officer has provided adequate prima facie justification for the fuel reimbursement provision, the service recovery incentive, the requirement for cockpit commonality, the hot-spare unavailability deduction and the disincentives for late performance or missed stops. Protester's disagreements with those provisions are insufficient to overcome those justifications.

Protest against the cancellation of a solicitation for highway mail transportation contract after bids were exposed is denied; fact that 21 of 30 bidders expressed bids as annual rates despite solicitation's requirement for round-trip prices supports contracting officer's determination that solicitation was ambiguous and is a "compelling reason" to cancel the solicitation.

Protest against award of contract for dot-matrix bar code printers is dismissed and denied. Contention that protester was prejudiced by solicitation's ambiguity is untimely raised; protester is not prejudiced by contractor's substitution of printers in the course of contract performance; awardee's low price did not preclude award if contractor is otherwise able to perform.

Protest of contractor against its nonselection under prequalification process for a design/build contract for fixed mechanization is sustained. Proposal evaluators properly relied on views of postal employees familiar with contractor's past work, and evaluator's consideration of contractor's past delays are supported by the presumption of correctness and the unsuitability of the protest process to resolve factual disputes. However, contractor was improperly downrated as to experience and design/build rating where evidence to the contrary was presented, failure to consider all references instead of "same sized" references was improper in absence of stated intention to do so, over-reliance on requirement for at least three large-dollar projects was inappropriate.

JON B. ROBINSON, P.S. Protest No. 92-23, July 14, 1992[htm]
JON B. ROBINSON, P.S. Protest No. 92-23, July 14, 1992[pdf]

Protest against determination of nonresponsibility to perform highway mail transportation contract is denied; bidder's termina tion for default on two postal contracts within the past year reasonably justifies the determination, and protester's unsupported allegations of contracting personnel's bias and animosity against him are insufficient to overcome the presumption of the good faith of government personnel.

Protest against terms of simplified purchase of modular furniture systems specifying three alternative brand-name models but not allowing substitution of other "equal" models, is dismissed and denied. Objection to contracting officer's failure to furnish solicitation protester is rendered moot by protester's receipt of copy; specification of three brand names to the exclusion of equals is consistent with regulations (Postal Service is not subject to Competition in Contracting Act); and challenge that provisions of Procurement Manual are vague or ambiguous is outside protest jurisdiction.

Protest against award of contract to tabulate Elvis Presley stamp ballots is denied; evaluation of protester's proposal was not arbitrary or in violation of regulations. Protester confuses issue of proposal's technical acceptability with issue of offeror's responsibility, was not entitled to award on the basis of lowest price when price was only one of five evaluation criteria, unreasonably relied on statement of non-procurement personnel with respect to matter which should have been the subject of solicitation amendment, and is incorrect that preference was due small, woman-owned, or minority-owned business.

Protest arising out of termination for convenience of contract for EPABX telephone system after unsuccessful offeror protests to contracting officer that awardee's product does not meet specification requirements is dismissed in part and denied in part. Contention now that specification was vague is untimely. It is within bid protest jurisdiction to consider such a protest, which challenges the contracting officer's ultimate determination that the offered product was noncompliant. The determination here was not arbitrary or capricious.

Protest against award of contract for notebook computers is denied; protester's contention that its offer's substitution of total freight costs for unit freight costs was a "glaring error" is reviewed for reasonableness, and contracting officer acted reasonably in accepting offer as submitted. Where award is to be made in the aggregate, contracting officer need not compare itemized prices for mistake, and it would undermine integrity of the procurement process to allow unsuccessful offeror to claim mistake after award in all but extremely compelling circumstances.

Protest against award of food service contract is denied; protester is not interested party to challenge conclusion of earlier protest requiring re-evaluation of proposals and its objection to the previous conclusion lacks factual basis, and its contentions with respect to conduct of the reevaluation lack record support.

Protest against award of contract for computer equipment maintenance is denied; protester's contentions that its price was lower than awardee's, that prompt payment discounts were to be taken into account in price comparison, and the fact that awardee is foreign-owned requires application of "buy American" differential to its offer are all incorrect.

Request for reconsideration of previous decision is denied; three of the grounds for request restate matters previously raised; remaining ground, that awardee under solicitation has abandoned contract, was irrelevant to issues presented in protest.

Job cleaner contractor's protest against determination that she was nonresponsible is denied; while facts surrounding offeror's interview with postmaster of facility to be cleaned were disputed, protester did not overcome presumption of correctness of contracting officer's version; postmaster's conclusion that offeror could not perform work required on schedule established by solicitation was not arbitrary or capricious.

Protest by prospective subcontractor that contractor manufacturing Eastern Region Mail Containers subcontracted to Federal Prison Industries for manufacture of container's canvas netting is dismissed as untimely when filed more than fifteen working days after award of contract; prospective subcontractor is not "interested party" with standing to protest where its financial interest is contingent on contractor's decision outside contract award process.

Protest against award of contract for 24-pin print heads under simplified purchase procedure is sustained; change in stated delivery requirements to accommodate offeror who could not deliver on schedule as originally proposed, without advising other offerors and soliciting new round of quotations, was incorrect. Requirement for amendment is applicable to oral solicitations; change was discussion, not correction of a deficiency.

Protest against exclusion of protester's offer for booklet stamp machines from competitive range and nature of discussions with offerors in competitive range is dismissed in part and denied in part. Protester's contention that it should have been scored as "no risk" rather than "low risk" was not relevant to its exclusion from competitive range; fact that its offer was scored "acceptable" for credibility of its proposal, in face of higher scores for other offerors, so that it lacked reasonable chance at award, justified elimination. Further, error in downrating protester's offer concerning specific prior vending service did not prejudice it since awardee's superiority in other areas justified award. Protester, once excluded, is not interested party to dispute propriety of communications with those remaining in the competitive range.

Protests against the re-evaluation of proposals for contract to perform air conditioning equipment work following prior protests are sustained; contracting officer failed to recognize uncertainties in the protesters' proposals as requiring discussions, evaluators' technical reviews were superficial, numerical scores were inconsistent with narratives, different offerors' deficiencies were treated differently, proposals were improperly downrated for perceived deficiencies in provided information. Due to substantial degree of performance and need for work to provide effective working conditions, no relief is possible, but appointing authority invited to review appropriateness of contracting officer's contracting authority.

Protest against award of prior contract, subsequently terminated for convenience, is dismissed as untimely; protest against terms of successor solicitation for air compressors, air dryer, and filter as unduly restrictive is sustained. While contracting officer demonstrated prima facie justification for requirement that compressor system include microprocessor, he acknowledged that remaining requirements are restrictive. Decision notes the appropriateness of the use of product descriptions to procure the needed items.

Request for reconsideration of decision is denied; of three challenged points, two simply restate arguments previously considered but rejected, third, concerning timeliness, is appropriate for consideration but unpersuasive. Protester's objections to previous decision's dicta does not afford a basis for reconsideration.

Protest of failure to award construction contractor to protester who failed to supply payment and performance bonds because its offered price was less than $25,000 is dismissed as untimely protest against solicitation's terms concerning bonds; solicitation's unequivocal requirement for bonds without regard to contract amount did not allow offeror to disregard provision without seeking its clarification before offers were due.

Protest against award to higher-priced offeror for furniture systems is dismissed as untimely; central issue of protest was higher price of awardee, known to protester upon receipt of notice of award, not information concerning evaluation of protester disclosed in subsequent debriefing, and protest was also received more than fifteen working days after contract award.

Protest against terms and requirements of vehicle washing requirement is dismissed in part and sustained in part; objections to solicitation terms raised after offers were received is untimely, but reduction of award to protester due to concerns about its ability to perform the work was inconsistent with vehicle washing handbook's directions concerning award.

Protest against terms of solicitation for nationwide temporary services as unduly restrictive is denied where contracting officer establishes prima facie support for preference that services be provided in-house, rather than by subcontract, and protester has failed to show the requirement unreasonable; complaint that additional requirement for references should be more restrictive than proposed is not for consideration.

Protest of determination that individual is nonresponsible prospective contractor for mail transportation contract is sustained where analysis of monthly operating costs assumes that a self-employed contractor cannot reallocate salary to operational costs; contracting officer failed to tell bidder he must provide documentation concerning the availability of the required equipment from family members or other sources; and contracting officer's judgment that bidder's experience as a driver is insufficient to manage this transportation contract lacks reasonable basis.

Protest of contracting officer's refusal to consider its late proposal for parking lot repairs filed more than ten working days after the information on which it was based is known or should have been known is dismissed as untimely. Protest, if timely, would have been denied. Protester failed to avail itself of every reasonable opportunity to obtain the missing amendments and submitted its late proposal when its consideration would have jeopardized or would have given the appearance of jeopardizing the integrity of the competitive process.

Of two protests concerning the issuance and terms of emergency solicitations for the highway transportation of plant load quantities of mail on an "as needed basis" between publishers' plants, the protest lodged after emergency offers were received is dismissed as untimely, while the protest lodged before offers were received is sustained. Review of the exercise of emergency contracting authority is within protest jurisdiction to determine whether the contracting officer abused his discretion in using an emergency contract; here, the circumstances which the contracting officer cites here cannot reasonably be said to amount to an emergency.

Back to Purchasing Protest Decisions Homepage