1993 Digest
Protest against failure to prequalify a firm for a general construction contract is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the protester challenges the prequalification process generally and the regulations which allow the Postal Service to limit the number of prequalified firms; protest is denied where the evaluators' determination that the protester was not one of the most highly qualified firms had a reasonable basis.
Request for reconsideration is granted to the extent that protester has demonstrated failure to consider fully information previously provided, and is otherwise denied.
Protest against the terms of a solicitation is denied where substitution of a product description for a specification would not enhance competition, and protester has not met its burden of proof that specification is unduly restrictive or that procurement is biased against it and in favor of another.
Protest alleging various improprieties in emergency solicitation for air taxi service is sustained where contracting officer did not base determination of nonresponsibility reasonably on substantial information.
Request for reconsideration is denied where protester does not present newly-discovered evidence and does not demonstrate errors of law or failures to consider essential information previously provided.
Protest against award of contract for local area network components is dismissed in part and denied in part. Protester who was not next in line for award lacks standing with respect to issues which, if resolved in its favor, would not affect its right to the award. Issues involving the selection of protester's components for price evaluation were untimely raised after offers were due. Claim that protestor's and awardee's offers were evaluated disparately is properly raised, but the protester has failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating an improper evaluation.
Protests against award of Wide Area Network equipment contract are denied where solicitation did not require provision of SNMP-compliant external connection devices, offers were reasonably found to be technically equivalent, and life cycle costs were properly adjusted.
Protests against awards of indefinite quantity contracts for general construction work are denied where the protesters fail to show that their rejection for technical unacceptability was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion; proposals clearly did not meet solicitation's documentation requirements and the contracting officer had no obligation to discuss the proposals' deficiencies with the protesters.
Protest against the exclusion of an offer from the competitive range is denied where protester fails to establish that the determination that its higher priced offer lacked real chance of award was unreasonable.
Protest against award of contract for telephone system is denied where determination of Centrex offeror's technical acceptability was not arbitrary or in violation of procurement regulations; protest involving interpretation of previously-awarded telephone contract is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Protest alleging various improprieties in series of advertised and emergency solicitations for highway service is dismissed in part and denied in part. Protest against timing of emergency solicitation is untimely when not made prior to receipt of offers; protester lacks standing to protest on behalf of others; and complaint that notation on worksheet was not considered in evaluation of second-low bid on advertised solicitation is without merit.
Protest against issuance of purchase order under simplified purchase procedures is denied where protester fails to show that the evaluation of its oral quotation was arbitrary or in violation of procurement regulations.
Protest against awards of two of three air taxi contracts is dismissed where protester lacks standing; protest against remaining award is denied where protester fails to show that the contracting officer's affirmative determinations of the awardee's responsiveness and responsibility were arbitrary or amounted to abuse of discretion.
Protest against nonresponsibility determination is denied where protester failed to show that it was arbitrary, capricious, or not reasonably based on substantial information; a record of recent unsatisfactory performance on a postal contract can justify a finding of nonresponsibility even when that contract was not terminated for default; and a nonresponsibility determination for one solicitation does not amount to a de facto debarment.
Protest against rejection of all bids as excessive in price is denied where contracting officer's decision is not shown to have been a clear abuse of discretion.
Protest against failure to consider late bid is dismissed where protest was submitted more than ten working days after protester was notified of bid's late receipt.
Protest alleging false certification of independent price determination is dismissed where it depends on an alleged breach of a private agreement and concerns a responsibility determination not reviewable in the protest forum.
Protest against award to lowest priced offeror is dismissed where protester would not be in line for award if protest were sustained. Interested parties' objection to the acceptance of an offer proposing to use reprocessed plastic materials is untimely raised.
Contractor's protest against the placement of orders under an indefinite delivery contract with another supplier dismissed where filed well after the date of contract award; protester's complaint that it was entitled to produce the quantity ordered is for consideration under the Claims and Disputes clause of its contract.
Protest against elimination from consideration for A-E selection is sustained where selection board based elimination on protester's failure to supply resumes for all mechanical engineers determined to be necessary for project; firm's submissions otherwise indicated that the necessary number of mechanical engineers was available.
Request for reconsideration is denied where protester does not present newly-discovered evidence and does not demonstrate errors of law or failures to consider essential information previously provided.
Protest is denied where protester failed to show that the evaluation of its proposal to lease space was arbitrary, unreasonable or in violation of procurement regulations; protester's other contentions dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Back to Purchasing Protest Decisions Homepage[45]