1994 Digest

Protest against determination of nonresponsibility is denied where bidder's lack of financial resources, coupled with her understatement of required costs relating to the payment of a hired driver, supports determination.

Protest against the evaluation of offers for a Contract Postal Unit is sustained where evaluation was arbitrarily conducted on basis inconsistent with solicitation's evaluation criteria.

Protest against award of contract for merchandising displays is denied where award was made in accordance with the solicitation to the technically superior offeror rather than to the lowest priced; it was not an abuse of discretion for the contracting officer to conclude that the protester's proposal was inferior technically to the awardee's and therefore did not offer the best value to the Postal Service.

Protest against exclusion of emergency contractor from solicitation of bids from incumbents on existing highway contract routes to provide additional service on their routes is denied where protester does not fit the definition of incumbent and Procurement Manual regulation on limited competitive procedures was followed.

Protest against contracting officer's determination of nonresponsibility is sustained where the determination was arbitrary and not based on substantial evidence.

Protest against terms of solicitation is dismissed in part and denied in part; contention that solicitation is not restrictive enough because an allowed chemical finishing process will not meet Postal Service's need presents issue not for review, while contention that solicitation is unduly restrictive, although reviewable, fails because decision not to allow another finishing process is not shown to be clearly unreasonable.

Protest against nonresponsibility determinations is denied where the contracting officer reasonably based the determinations on substantial information and the bidder failed to supply required information pertaining to responsibility.

Protest against failure of contracting officer to send protester a solicitation package in time for bid opening is denied where the protester waited until three days before bid opening to request the solicitation by number and the contracting office mailed the package the same day.

Protest against award of contract for cleaning services is denied where contracting officer took remedial action after protester's initial offer was accidentally disclosed to competitor before discussions and where protester did not suffer quantifiable harm.

Protest against failure to solicit incumbent contractor for emergency service following nonrenewal of existing contracts is sustained; Procurement Manual regulation requiring such solicitation is not superseded by Mail Transportation Purchasing Handbook provision relating to emergency contracts.

Protest against award of emergency highway contract is denied where protester submitted no evidence supporting his claim that the postmaster improperly coached the low offeror.

Request for reconsideration of protest is denied when it restates contentions raised in the course of the protest and addresses matters not raised before. New contention that bidder's misdating of bid requires its rejection is incorrect; the error was a clerical mistake apparent on the face of the bid.

Protest against award of highway transportation contracts is dismissed in part and denied in part. Protester lacks standing to challenge award on solicitation for which he is not in line for award. Protester's separate challenge to consideration of bidder's multiple bids and association of misidentified bid with proper solicitation is without merit.

Protests against nonresponsibility determinations are denied where contracting officer acted reasonably based on substantial information about offeror's past performance record and lack of sufficient quality control system.

Protest against award of contract for testing and maintenance of switchgear equipment is sustained where award was not made in accordance with the solicitation's stated requirement that the contractors' personnel be certified by either of two professional testing associations.

Protest against determination that bidder is nonresponsible with respect to mail transportation contract is denied when that determination is not abuse of contracting officer's discretion.

Protest against affirmative determination of low bidder's responsibility is denied where protester fails to show fraud, abuse of discretion, or failure to apply definitive criteria of responsibility.

Protest against determination that bidder is nonresponsible with respect to mail transportation contract is denied when that determination is not abuse of contracting officer's discretion.

Protest against solicitation for an Electronic Technical Document System is denied where specifications are not unduly restrictive of competition and protester has failed to prove that the specifications are unreasonable.

Protest against contracting officer's failure to consider protester's proposal for regional contract is dismissed when it was first made more than fifteen days after contract award and the contracting officer did not make it impossible for the protester to file in a timely manner.

Protest against issuance of purchase order is sustained where identity of entity which received purchase order could not be established when order was issued; other deficiencies require resolicitation of the requirement.

Protest against award of contract for telephone system is denied where protester fails to establish the inconsistency of the award with the solicitation's evaluation scheme.

Protest against failure to provide prospective bidders with notice of a solicitation is denied where the failure was inadvertent, adequate competition was obtained, and the offers received were reasonably priced.

Protest against award of contract for order fulfillment services for expedited mail products is dismissed in part where certain allegations were untimely raised; denied in part where the contracting officer's determination that the two highest-ranked proposals were technically equivalent was reasonable; and sustained in part where the contracting officer failed to analyze the awardee's award fee proposal as required by the solicitation.

Protest challenging affirmative determination of awardee's responsibility is denied where it was not an abuse of discretion for the contracting officer to conclude that the awardee's aircraft met the performance capability requirements of the solicitation.

Protest of exclusion of construction contractor from consideration for award is sustained where contracting officer concedes incorrectness of the exclusion; matter is remanded to contracting officer for determination of contractor's present responsibility.

Protest against failure to receive a contract for the printing of postage stamps is denied where technical evaluations were reasonable, consistent with the solicitation and supported by substantial evidence; protester's past performance record was not improperly evaluated; and discussions with protester were meaningful under established standards.

Protests against reasonableness of prequalification requirement for specific design/build experience and its application are dismissed and denied; challenges to requirement are untimely, and protesters have not supported their burden of demonstrating that the application of the requirement was incorrect.

Back to Purchasing Protest Decisions Homepage