Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

B-275066 Jan 17, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights There is no basis for concluding that contracting officer's reliance upon the one reference in selection of an offeror was unreasonable. Absent any basis for concluding that additional references listed by protester would have provided information outweighing the negative reference provided by the agency's own personnel. Protester's assertion that its subcontractor bore responsibility for poor performance under its prior prime contract with the agency presents no basis for concluding that the agency unreasonably determined that the protester's performance under that contract was poor. The prime contractor under a government contract is generally responsible for the performance of its subcontractors. View Decision Matter of: Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. File: B-275066 Date: January 17, 1997 Where agency point of contact for evaluation of past performance, listed as a reference by both offerors, provided positive reference for the awardee and negative reference for protester, there is no basis for concluding that contracting officer's reliance upon the one reference in selection of an offeror was unreasonable, absent any basis for concluding that additional references listed by protester would have provided information outweighing the negative reference provided by the agency's own personnel. Protester's assertion that its subcontractor bore responsibility for poor performance under its prior prime contract with the agency presents no basis for concluding that the agency unreasonably determined that the protester's performance under that contract was poor; the prime contractor under a government contract is generally responsible for the performance of its subcontractors. Where solicitation for fixed-price requirements contract contained no estimated quantities and provided no method for evaluating price beyond advising that each line item would be given equal weight, post-award protest that solicitation failed to provide for adequate evaluation of price is untimely. Attorneys DECISION Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. protests the award of a contract to Ann Riley & Associates under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the National Mediation Board for court reporting services. Gross contends that the selection decision was unreasonable and contrary to the selection criteria announced in the RFP. We deny the protest. On August 15, 1996, the Board issued the RFP for a fixed-price requirements contract for services during fiscal year 1997. The solicitation sought prices per page for same-day, next-day, and standard (5-day) delivery for original and additional copies of transcripts. The schedule also allowed separate pricing for delivery within the Washington, D.C. area and elsewhere, 12 line items in all. The solicitation contained no estimated quantities and provided no method for evaluating price, beyond advising offerors that each line item would "be given equal weight." Section M of the RFP provided that the agency would make its selection decision based on "lowest overall [price] to the [g]overnment and past performance." The record indicates that the agency expected potential contractors to provide the Board with original copies of transcripts for free. Past contractors had done so (and the competitors here offered to do so), in the expectation of a profit from selling additional copies to the public. The agency would therefore pay only for any additional copies that it needed. The record shows that the agency has generally paid $20,000 to $25,000 under past contracts; presumably most of this expense resulted from proceedings where the Board required more than one copy of a transcript. In this regard, the RFP advised offerors that 60 to 75 percent of transcripts would involve presidential emergency boards, requiring delivery of an original and three copies. Arbitration proceedings, approximately 5 percent of transcripts, required an original and one copy. The remainder (mediation boards) would require only an original. (The RFP provided that the contractor would charge the public the same price for transcripts as it charged the agency for additional copies.) The RFP, as issued, contained no instructions for the submission of proposals. Five offerors submitted proposals, but only one of them provided any information on past performance with its initial proposal. The agency established a competitive range consisting of the three low offers, including those from Gross and Riley. By letters dated September 18, it requested the three offerors to provide past performance referrals by September 25. In response, Gross provided a list of seven references, including a prior contract with the Board. The awardee, Riley, also referenced a Board contract.