Ms. Dorene S. Amber protests the award of a contract for Highway Contract Route (HCR) 59141, daily service, Sundays and holidays excepted, from the Billings, MT, Processing and Distribution Center to Belfry, MT, and return, with stops at four other post offices. Prior to March, 2000, service on HCR 59141 had been performed by a contractor who abandoned the route due to illness. Ms. Amber was awarded an emergency contract to perform that service beginning March 4.

On May 8, the Western DNO, Seattle Branch, issued solicitation 980-104-00 seeking permanent service on the HCR. The service required one four-wheel-drive van with a 300 cubic foot capacity,¹ and comprised an estimated 46,673 annual miles and 1,794 annual hours. Section M. of the solicitation discussed the basis for award.²

Five offers were received by the June 9 date offers were due, of which that of High Plains Protective Service, Inc., (High Plains) was lowest, and that of Ms. Amber was second lowest. Both Ms. Amber and High Plains were asked to complete pre-award questionnaires. High Plains’ questionnaire indicated that it owned two 3/4 ton four-wheel-drive pickup trucks and that it planned to purchase an enclosed trailer which it planned to use on the route. The Western Branch advised High Plains that the District office had determined that a straight body or single unit vehicle would be required and that a trailer would not be acceptable. Accordingly, High Plains was asked to "clarify and/or reconsider the actual vehicle you will use." High Plains did so, stating that a shell of appropriate size would be acquired for use with the pickup trucks.³

The DNO found this acceptable, and following an inquiry by Billings, MT, Administrative Official, it found High Plains to be capable. The contract was awarded to High Plains on July 12, with service to begin on August 12. The unsuccessful offerors were notified of the award by letters dated July 12.⁴

Ms. Amber sent a letter dated July 24 to the Manager, National Mail Transportation, at Postal Service headquarters complaining about the award. She faxed a copy of the letter to the Western Branch, which considered it to be a protest within this office’s jurisdiction and forwarded it for our consideration.

The protest includes the following points:

-    Ms. Amber was disadvantaged as the incumbent contractor because the price of her contract was available to the other offerors. It was not coincidental that High Plains offered a price only slightly lower than her existing price.

-    Ms. Amber should have had the opportunity to renew her contract, consistent with provision H.17 of her contract.⁵

-    Noting the that provision M.1.a. provided that "first consideration will be given to proposals which meet all of the service requirements specified"; that provision M.1.b provided that "[a]ward will not necessarily be made to the offeror who provides the best service or . . . the lowest price"; and that provision M.2. provided for the evaluation of past performance, schedule, and type of equipment and property, the protester contends that she was "already qualified and in place," while High Plains was not and "did not even propose the correct required equipment." The protester also questions the delay in the contract award as evidencing favoritism to the awardee.

-    Noting other provisions of the solicitation regarding negotiation, the encouragement of small, minority and women-owned businesses, and the requirement that suppliers take affirmative action to employ qualified handicapped individuals,⁶ the protester complains that these policies were not followed in her case.

The contracting officer’s statement responds to the protest as follows:

-    The price of Ms. Amber’s emergency contract was a matter of public knowledge, and therefore was not a disadvantage.

-    Ms. Amber was aware, when the emergency service was solicited, that the contract’s term would be limited. Although the solicitation included provision H-17 regarding renewal, Purchasing Manual (PM) 4.5.6 e. clearly provides that emergency contracts may not be renewed.

-    The protester quotes portions of the award criteria of solicitation section M selectively. That section provided that price and supplier capability would be the basis for award.

-    The process by which the offerors were evaluated and asked to clarify their proposals was typical, not unique. Since High Plains’ response to the questionnaire identified several available vehicles, including one (the trailer) which was not acceptable, it was "requested that [it] clarify and/or reconsider the actual vehicle to be provided." High Plains did so.

-    The award was not delayed to accommodate High Plains. Award occurred thirty-three days after offers were received, well within the sixty days normally available for award.

-    The Postal Service’s policy of encouraging the participation of small, minority, and women-owned businesses was followed in this case. Ms. Amber was encouraged to participate in the solicitation. The DNO did advise Ms. Amber that no directive provided a preference in award for minority, disabled, or handicapped offerors.

Ms. Amber submitted comments responding to the contracting officers’ statement:

-    The vehicle she supplied under the emergency contract already met the enhanced requirements for the permanent solicitation, and she has met its vehicle inspection and driver screening requirements. High Plains should not have been found to met the vehicle requirements since it proposed an unacceptable trailer.

-    Ms. Amber intended her letter to be an appeal, as well as a protest.⁷

-    The prices of emergency contracts, unlike the prices of "awarded contracts," should not be public information. The disclosure of those prices, coupled with the policy of not renewing emergency contracts, places the incumbent emergency contractor at a great disadvantage.

-    Ms. Amber asserts that she was not solicited for the emergency contract, found out about it by chance, and she had to inquire several times to obtain a solicitation package.

-    Ms. Amber’s emergency contract should have been subject to renewal since the contract included a provision that it could be renewed.

-    The Postal Service requested that Ms. Amber train High Plains’ drivers on the route, although she was not afforded any training when she took the route and had to train herself.⁸

This protest presents a number of issues which we address individually.

It was not improper for the rate of Ms. Amber’s emergency contract to be disclosed. In general, contract prices are a matter of public record, and there is no basis on which to distinguish Ms. Amber’s emergency contract from a regular contract in that respect.¹⁰ Cf. Anthony Owens, P.S. Protest No. 94-32, September 7, 1994: "[I]t would not be inappropriate for a postal employee to disclose the price being paid to an incumbent or previous contractor, since those prices are a matter of public record."

That the protester’s contract included a provision indicating that it could be renewed does not provide a basis to challenge this award. It appears that provision B-68 was included in Ms. Amber’s contract in error, since, as the contracting officer notes, the Postal Service’s contracting regulations specifically provide that emergency contracts cannot be renewed.¹¹ (PM 4.5.6.a, not cited by the contracting officer, complements PM 4.5.6.d by limiting the privilege of renewal to "regular and temporary mail transportation contracts," categories of contracts other than emergency contracts as defined at PM 4.5.5.b.) However, even if the inclusion of the renewal provision in the emergency contract had the effect of allowing its renewal, it did not require that the contracting officer renew it, and a contracting officer’s decision not to renew a transportation contract is a matter outside this office’s jurisdiction to consider. TLC, P.S. Protest No. 98-14, July 21, 1998.

The solicitation’s evaluation scheme contemplates evaluation of offers differently in two situations. In the first, which is governed by M.1. a. of the solicitation, award is made on the basis of price from among the offerors who offer "service that meets the service requirements." In the second, which is governed by M.1. b., and which comes into consideration only if M.1. a. does not, offers are evaluated on the basis of the service that is offered and their price.

In this instance, Ms. Amber appears to contend that evaluation under M.1. b. was appropriate because High Plains, by offering to perform the service with an unacceptable trailer, in the terms of M.1. a., did not "offer service which met the service requirements," or was not "fully compliant." If High Plains’ offer took that exception to the service requirement,¹² it revised its offer in that regard prior to award, as it was entitled to do (PM 4.2.3.b) Since its revised offer fully met the service requirement, it was entitled to have that offer evaluated pursuant to M.1. a., which considered only price and responsibility or capability. When an offeror takes no exception to the solicitation’s service requirements, there is "no opportunity for the contracting officer to perform any sort of ‘best value’ analysis weighing the advantages of [a higher] offer against its higher price" in comparison to the lower offer. West-Wilson Enterprise, P.S. Protest No. 99-32, April 25, 2000.

While Ms. Amber contends that she is more qualified than High Plains to perform the route by reason of her prior experience, the offerors’ relative experience levels are not relevant, and the contracting officer’s determination that High Point is capable "is not subject to being overturned by this office in the course of a protest absent fraud, abuse of discretion, or failure to apply definitive responsibility criteria." W.W. Fry and Son, Inc., P.S. Protest No. 99-28, February 1, 2000. Since there is no evidence suggesting an such error, the determination is not for our review.¹³

Ms. Amber’s remaining objection does not support her claim of entitlement to the award.

Technology TEAM, Incorporated, P.S. Protest No. 00-09, June 28, 2000.

The protest is denied.

William J. Jones
Senior Counsel
Contract Protests and Policies

³It appears from the record that Ms. Amber is performing and proposed to perform using a four-wheel-drive pickup truck with a shell enclosing the cargo bed.