Oklahoma County Newspapers, Inc.
Case: B-270849
Agency:
Protester: Oklahoma County Newspapers, Inc.
Date: 1996-05-06
Denied
Oklahoma County Newspapers, Inc.
BNUMBER: B-270849; B-270849.2
DATE: May 6, 1996
TITLE: Oklahoma County Newspapers, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Oklahoma County Newspapers, Inc.
File: B-270849; B-270849.2
Date:May 6, 1996
Randy L. Goodman, Esq., and Debby Walden, Esq., for the protester.
V. Burns Hargis, Esq., McAfee & Taft, for the Journal Record
Publishing Company, an intervenor.
Richard P. Castiglia, Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the
agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Offer submitted in trade name properly was accepted for award
where evidence of use of trade name was existing and available to
agency at time of award and adequately identified corporation that
would be bound by offer.
2. Protest that agency improperly credited experience of predecessor
firm to successor awardee is denied where awardee retained a
significant number of key personnel and some assets of predecessor
firm, thus evidencing continuity of operations between the two firms
such that predecessor firm's experience was relevant to predicting
successor firm's successful performance of contract.
DECISION
Oklahoma County Newspapers, Inc. (OCN) protests the award of a
contract to the Journal Record Publishing Company (JRPC) under request
for proposals (RFP)
No. F34650-96-R-0008, issued by the Department of the Air Force for
publication of the base newspaper at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.
The protester contends that (1) the award improperly was made to a
nonexistent entity, and (2) the agency improperly evaluated proposals.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The Air Force issued the RFP on November 13, 1995, for publication of
the Tinker Take Off, a weekly civilian enterprise (CE) newspaper.[1]
The RFP contemplated award of a 1-year contract, with four 1-year
options, to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the
solicitation, would be most advantageous to the government. In this
regard, the RFP listed five evaluation criteria--(1) capability
concerning various printing aspects, such as type fonts and screens;
(2) ability to meet contract requirements, including staff; (3)
experience and past performance, including experience in publishing
similar publications; (4) convenience of communication between the
base public affairs office and the publisher in terms of distance and
use of computer equipment; and (5) proposed services in addition to
those required.
Two offers--JRPC's and OCN's--were received. Based on the evaluation,
the agency determined JRPC's proposal to be superior to OCN's, and
thus made award to that firm on December 21, 1995.
NONEXISTENT ENTITY
The protester argues that award was invalid because JRPC was not a
legal entity until after the December 21 award; JRPC was incorporated
in the state of Delaware (on January 5, 1996) and authorized to do
business in the state of Oklahoma (on January 11, 1996).
A contract cannot be awarded to a nonexistent entity, since no firm
would be bound to perform the work. National Found. Co., 72 Comp.
Gen. 307 (1993), 93-2 CPD para. 143. However, this rule does not
automatically prohibit award in the name of such an entity, so long as
there is evidence establishing an identity between the nominal offeror
and a legitimate entity; for example, where the nominal offeror is a
trade name used by an established business entity, and available
evidence makes it possible to identify the actual offeror with
sufficient certainty so that the offeror would not be able to avoid
the obligations resulting from acceptance of its offer, acceptance of
the offer is proper. Coonrod & Assocs., 67 Comp. Gen. 117 (1987),
87-2 CPD para. 549; Sunrise Int'l Group, Inc., B-251956, Feb. 8, 1993,
93-1 CPD para. 114; Jack B. Imperiale Fence Co., Inc., B-203261, Oct. 26,
1981, 81-2 CPD para. 339.[2]
The record sufficiently establishes an identity between JRPC and Dolan
Publishing Company (DPC) so that the offer submitted in the trade name
of JRPC would legally bind DPC under the contract. Specifically, on
May 8, 1995, during the final option year of JRPC's incumbent contract
to publish the Tinker Take Off, JRPC was acquired by DPC, a Minnesota
corporation. In connection with this purchase, DPC created a business
entity--the Journal Record Acquisition Company (JRAC)--into which the
JRPC assets were to be transferred.
Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...