Back to the Viewable page
Postal Purchasing Protest Decisions

1995 Digest



COMPUTERIZED SCREENING, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-56, March 12, 1996[1][htm]
COMPUTERIZED SCREENING, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-56, March 12, 1996[2][pdf]

Protest against placing a Federal Supply Schedule order for blood pressure monitoring devices is denied; while quoter in competitive selection process which preceded order has standing to protest, its contentions that the devices selected did not meet the Postal Service's minimum require-ments and that a less expensive device which it offered did meet them fail.



RESEARCH MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, P.S. Protest No. 95-53, February 12, 1996[3][htm]
RESEARCH MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, P.S. Protest No. 95-53, February 12, 1996[4][pdf]

Protest against elimination of a proposal to provide support and professional personnel services from consideration is denied where the protester was informed of the deficiencies in its proposal during discussions but declined to correct them in its best and final offer.



CENTRAL CONTROL ALARM CORP., P.S. Protest No. 95-52, February 16, 1996[5][htm]
CENTRAL CONTROL ALARM CORP., P.S. Protest No. 95-52, February 16, 1996[6][pdf]

Protest challenging successful offeror's eligibility under solicitation's definitive criteria of responsibility is denied. Documentation before the con-tracting officer provided adequate basis for determination that offeror met solicitation requirements.



ADAMS-MCCLURE, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-51, February 26, 1996[7][htm]
ADAMS-MCCLURE, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-51, February 26, 1996[8][pdf]

Protest against the issuance of a purchase order to an incumbent printing contractor based on its previous Postal Service experience is sustained where unstated evaluation factors were used and award was not made in accord-ance with the RFQ's stated criteria.



ROTH BROS., INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-49,March 21, 1996[9][htm]
ROTH BROS., INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-49,March 21, 1996[10][pdf]

Protest against evaluation of proposals on a solicitation for roof repair is dismissed in part and denied in part where contracting officer's decision to award was supported by substantial evidence showing that awardee met evaluation criteria involving previous experience and solicitation did not prohibit the use of subcontractor experience to meet experience evaluation criteria.



ENERGY OPTIONS INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-48, January 5, 1996[11][htm]
ENERGY OPTIONS INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-48, January 5, 1996[12][pdf]

Protest against award of shared energy savings contract is dismissed and denied. Objections to lack of specificity in evaluation scheme for alternative proposals for replacement and retrofitting of lamps and to basing evaluation of financial proposals on net present value are untimely raised; technical evaluation of successful offeror was neither arbitrary nor capricious.



CIR INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION, INC. , P.S. Protest No. 95-47, April 29, 1996[13][htm]
CIR INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION, INC. , P.S. Protest No. 95-47, April 29, 1996[14][pdf]

Protest against award of contract to furnish overhead conveyor system is denied where contracting officer's determination that protester's proposal was technically unacceptable was reasonable; other allegations are dismissed as untimely.



EARTH MANAGEMENT INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-45, December 22, 1995[15][htm]
EARTH MANAGEMENT INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-45, December 22, 1995[16][pdf]

Protest against contracting officer's failure to solicit offeror on solicitation mailing list is denied. Adequate competition was obtained in the procure-ment, the offers received were reasonable as to price, and the failure to use the mailing list was not intentionally planned to deprive offerors on the list of an opportunity to participate in the procurement.



EARTH MANAGEMENT INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-43, December 18, 1995[17][htm]
EARTH MANAGEMENT INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-43, December 18, 1995[18][pdf]

Protest against contracting officer's determination of offeror's responsibility to perform vehicle washing contract is dismissed. Protester lacked standing because it was not next in line for award, and the protest did not raise an issue which would allow review of that determination



THURO METAL PRODUCTS, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-42, December 12, 1995[19][htm]
THURO METAL PRODUCTS, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-42, December 12, 1995[20][pdf]

Protest against nonresponsibility determination is denied where contracting officer did not abuse his discretion in basing it on recent poor performance of another postal contract



AMR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, P.S. Protest No. 95-41, December 5, 1995[21][htm]
AMR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, P.S. Protest No. 95-41, December 5, 1995[22][pdf]

Protest against the award of contract for operation of repair and supply center is dismissed as untimely. Protester's contention that awardee's price was unrealistically low was known in sufficient time to allow timely protest; delay until subsequent debriefing was not justified.



MARKIM TRUCKING, P.S. Protest No. 95-38, November 2, 1995[23][htm]
MARKIM TRUCKING, P.S. Protest No. 95-38, November 2, 1995[24][pdf]

Protest against correction of bids which displaced protester's bid is denied where the mistakes and the bids actually intended were evident from the bids and the solicitation; protest against denial of protester's request to allow correction of his bid is sustained.



FEDERAL PROPERTIES OF R.I., INC. , P.S. Protest No. 95-37, January 22, 1996[25][htm]
FEDERAL PROPERTIES OF R.I., INC. , P.S. Protest No. 95-37, January 22, 1996[26][pdf]

Protest against lease award is sustained in part; award was not made in accordance with the solicitation's description of the preferred geographic area. Since the error could have been remedied if detected before award, and other grounds for protest are either denied or dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, no prejudice to protester occurred and substantive relief is not warranted



PAMELA JEAN JOHNSON, P.S. Protest No. 95-36, October 6, 1995[27][htm]
PAMELA JEAN JOHNSON, P.S. Protest No. 95-36, October 6, 1995[28][pdf]

Protest against correction of bids which displaced protester's bid is denied where the mistakes and the bids actually intended were evident from the bids and the solicitation.



PRESERVATION, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-29, November 30, 1995[29][htm]
PRESERVATION, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-29, November 30, 1995[30][pdf]

Protest against award of masonry restoration contract is dismissed and denied. Protester's contentions that specification was vague and amended statement of work afforded insufficient time to respond are untimely; challenge to affirmative determination of awardee's responsibility is insufficient.



DAVCO CORPORATION, P.S. Protest No. 95-28, August 30, 1995[31][htm]
DAVCO CORPORATION, P.S. Protest No. 95-28, August 30, 1995[32][pdf]

Protest against award of mechanization contract is denied where contracting officer's determination that technical merit of higher-priced offer warranted award was not arbitrary and was consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme.



K & B ENTERPRISES, P.S. Protest No. 95-27, September 22, 1995[33][htm]
K & B ENTERPRISES, P.S. Protest No. 95-27, September 22, 1995[34][pdf]

Protest against nonresponsibility determination is denied where contract-ing officer reasonably based the determination on inadequate documentation of the bidder's financial resources.



DAVCO CORPORATION, P.S. Protest No. 95-25[35][htm]
DAVCO CORPORATION, P.S. Protest No. 95-25[36][pdf]

Protest against award of task order contract is denied where contracting officer's determination that technical merit of higher-priced offers warranted award was not arbitrary and was consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme.



WECKWORTH MANUFACTURING, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-21, August 30, 1995[37][htm]
WECKWORTH MANUFACTURING, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-21, August 30, 1995[38][pdf]

Protest against competitive award to Federal Prison Industries/UNICOR on the grounds that the solicitation already had set aside a certain quantity of the required items for UNICOR is dismissed because the protester, not next in line for award, lacks standing to protest.



ZENITH DATA SYSTEMS, INC. FALCON MICROSYSTEMS, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-19;95-20, November 22, 1995[39][htm]
ZENITH DATA SYSTEMS, INC. FALCON MICROSYSTEMS, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-19;95-20, November 22, 1995[40][pdf]

Protests against award of contract for computer systems are sustained in part; solicitation as amended required furnishing of systems which included a "flash BIOS," and it was error to award contract to offeror which proposed noncompliant systems. Since error could have been remedied if detected before award, prejudice to protesters was slight and substantive relief is not warranted. Protesters' further contention that the possibility of multiple awards was inadequately analyzed is denied.



DANIEL TIBBS, P.S. Protest No. 95-18, July 25, 1995[41][htm]
DANIEL TIBBS, P.S. Protest No. 95-18, July 25, 1995[42][pdf]

Protest against nonresponsibility determination is denied; contracting officer did not abuse his discretion in basing that determination on the protester's recent release from jail following long sentence for crime of moral turpitude.



KELLY SERVICES, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-17, October 27, 1995[43][htm]
KELLY SERVICES, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-17, October 27, 1995[44][pdf]

Protest against award of contract for temporary services is denied. Award on the basis of price was appropriate where offers were judged technically equivalent; protester has not demonstrated that its offer was underevaluated or that successful offeror's proposal was overevaluated.



BLAIR TEMPORARIES AND STAFFING, P.S. Protest No. 95-16, October 27, 1995[45][htm]
BLAIR TEMPORARIES AND STAFFING, P.S. Protest No. 95-16, October 27, 1995[46][pdf]

Protest against award of contract for temporary services is denied. Protester which was eliminated from the competitive range and which fails to challenge that elimination lacks standing to challenge the award.



RADIX II, P.S. Protest No. 95-15, July 13, 1995[47][htm]
RADIX II, P.S. Protest No. 95-15, July 13, 1995[48][pdf]

Protest against cancellation of a solicitation for telephone information system is denied; contracting officer's decision to incorporate requirement in new solicitation for corporate-wide call management system is not arbitrary or capricious.



DENNIS TRUCK LINE COMPANY OF OHIO, P.S. Protest No. 95-10, May 10, 1995[49][htm]
DENNIS TRUCK LINE COMPANY OF OHIO, P.S. Protest No. 95-10, May 10, 1995[50][pdf]

Protest alleging that awardee's bid for mail transportation contract was nonresponsive and the contracting officer improperly allowed the awardee to correct it after bid opening is dismissed as untimely raised; protester was aware that bid had been corrected when it received revised bid abstract more than ten working days before it submitted its protest.



ABLE COPIER SERVICES, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-09, April 10, 1995[51][htm]
ABLE COPIER SERVICES, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-09, April 10, 1995[52][pdf]

Protest against the application of solicitation's requirement that photocopier models be no more than three years old is denied; objection to requirement per se was untimely raised subsequent to the receipt of offers, and objection to the manner in which age was determined fails to establish the unreasonableness of the method used.



SYSTEM ADVANTAGE, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-08,On Reconsideration, June 1, 1995[53][htm]
SYSTEM ADVANTAGE, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-08,On Reconsideration, June 1, 1995[54][pdf]

Request for reconsideration of decision which sustained protest against award of contract for computer personnel services but which declined to terminate the improperly awarded contract is denied; protester merely expresses disagreement with conclusions reached in decision and restates arguments made in original protest.



SYSTEM ADVANTAGE, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-08, April 19, 1995[55][htm]
SYSTEM ADVANTAGE, INC., P.S. Protest No. 95-08, April 19, 1995[56][pdf]

Protest against the rejection as technically unacceptable of a proposal to provide contract computer personnel is sustained; rejection of proposal because it offered three individuals representing different skill levels instead of one individual for one position was arbitrary and lacked a reasonable basis.



MODAGRAPHICS, P.S. Protest No. 95-07, March 21, 1995[57][htm]
MODAGRAPHICS, P.S. Protest No. 95-07, March 21, 1995[58][pdf]

Protest contending that specification for mail collection box labels is unduly restrictive is denied where the contracting officer establishes a prima facie case for the requirement and protester's objections do not establish that the requirement is clearly unreasonable.



ANCRA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, P.S. Protest No. 95-06, March 21, 1995[59][htm]
ANCRA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, P.S. Protest No. 95-06, March 21, 1995[60][pdf]

Protest after contract award against the terms of a solicitation for shoring straps is dismissed as untimely where the allegedly deficient terms regarding convict labor were apparent on the face of the solicitation.



DATTEL REALTY COMPANY, P.S. Protest No. 95-01, March 1, 1995[61][htm]
DATTEL REALTY COMPANY, P.S. Protest No. 95-01, March 1, 1995[62][pdf]

Protest against the selection of a higher-priced offer for the construction and lease of a post office is denied where the solicitation did not require award to the lowest-priced offeror and the record fails to establish that the contracting officer's evaluation determination was arbitrary or capricious.


For information, changes and additions you can reach William J. Jones by e-mail at: wjones8@email.usps.gov[63]


Back to Purchasing Protest Decisions Homepage[64]


Table of Links
  1. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9556.htm
  2. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9556.pdf
  3. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9553.htm
  4. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9553.pdf
  5. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9552.htm
  6. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9552.pdf
  7. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9551.htm
  8. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9551.pdf
  9. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9549.htm
  10. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9549.pdf
  11. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9548.htm
  12. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9548.pdf
  13. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9547.htm
  14. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9547.pdf
  15. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9545.htm
  16. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9545.pdf
  17. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9543.htm
  18. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9543.pdf
  19. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9542.htm
  20. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9542.pdf
  21. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9541.htm
  22. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9541.pdf
  23. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9538.htm
  24. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9538.pdf
  25. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9537.htm
  26. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9537.pdf
  27. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9536.htm
  28. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9536.pdf
  29. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9529.htm
  30. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9529.pdf
  31. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9528.htm
  32. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9528.pdf
  33. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9527.htm
  34. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9527.pdf
  35. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9525.htm
  36. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9525.pdf
  37. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9521.htm
  38. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9521.pdf
  39. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9519.htm
  40. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9519.pdf
  41. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9518.htm
  42. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9518.pdf
  43. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9517.htm
  44. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9517.pdf
  45. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9516.htm
  46. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9516.pdf
  47. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9515.htm
  48. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9515.pdf
  49. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9510.htm
  50. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9510.pdf
  51. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9509.htm
  52. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9509.pdf
  53. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9508r.htm
  54. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9508r.pdf
  55. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9508.htm
  56. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9508.pdf
  57. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9507.htm
  58. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9507.pdf
  59. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9506.htm
  60. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9506.htm
  61. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9501.htm
  62. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/1995/9501.pdf
  63. wjones8@email.usps.gov
  64. http://www.usps.com/lawdept/protestdecisions/welcome.htm