Crawford Laboratories, B-277069, August 29, 1997

B-277069 Aug 29, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest is sustained where agency provides no rational basis for its determination of price reasonableness of contract awards for primer coatings at prices more than double the award prices under the prior procurement for the same items. Crawford contends that it was improperly not given the opportunity to compete for these items. That the award prices were unreasonable. That the contract performance period was January 1. The IFB was issued on November 8. While GSA states that a copy of the IFB was "most likely" sent to Crawford. It has no proof that it was sent. Crawford was not on the bidder's list for the IFB. Even though it was the incumbent contractor on three of the four items. View Decision Matter of: Crawford Laboratories File: B-277069 Date: August 29, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Crawford Laboratories protests the award of contracts under invitation for bids (IFB) No. TFTP-96-DJ-8009, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for primer coatings. Crawford contends that it was improperly not given the opportunity to compete for these items, that the award prices were unreasonable, and that the procurement should be recompeted. We sustain the protest because the agency has provided no rational basis for its price reasonableness determination. An October 23, 1996, Commerce Business Daily (CBD) synopsis of the procurement advised that the IFB would be issued on or about November 1, 1996, and that the contract performance period was January 1, 1997, through December 31, 1998. The IFB was issued on November 8, soliciting prices on four items covering GSA's estimated requirements for the period of January 1, 1997 (or the date of award if later) through July 31, 1998. By facsimile of October 30, Crawford requested a copy of the IFB. While GSA states that a copy of the IFB was "most likely" sent to Crawford, it has no proof that it was sent. Crawford was not on the bidder's list for the IFB--even though it was the incumbent contractor on three of the four items. On December 11, four bids were submitted on items 2 through 4, the only items relevant to this protest. Line items 2 and 3 each included two subline items: subline item (a) for five gallon cans and subline item (b) for one gallon cans; line item 4 covered only one gallon cans. One of the offerors requested withdrawal of its bid, which subsequently expired and was not further considered. The remaining three bids were as follows: Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Griggs Paint a. $244.70 a. $241.80 $49.60 b. 49.60 b. 48.75 Hanley Paint a. 185.00 a. 185.00 39.00 b. 39.00 b. 39.00 Durant Paints a. 185.75 a. 190.75 38.05 b. 37.55 b. 38.55 On March 18, Crawford telephoned GSA to inquire as to the status of the procurement and upon learning the status to ask why it had not been provided with a copy of the IFB. By letter of that date, Crawford also reminded the agency that it had been the awardee on items 2 through 4 under the prior IFB (issued in late 1994) for these requirements and alleged that the prices bid on the current IFB were more than double the prior award prices. Specifically, Crawford's prices under its 1994 contract were $86.20 for item 2(a), $17.57 for item 2(b), $86.89 for item 3(a), $17.38 for item 3(b), and $17.74 for item 4. GSA advised Crawford that no award decisions had been made. Prior to the awards, the contracting officer determined that Hanley's and Durant's prices were reasonable. The contracting officer's price analysis recognized that the prices bid on the two subitems of item 3 were "substantially higher" than the prices that the agency had paid for those items on the prior contract. In fact, the bids were more than double the prices that the agency had paid previously. The record shows that the award prices for item 2 and item 4 also were more than double the prices for those items on the prior contract. To support the determination of price reasonableness, the contracting officer noted that there had been competition, with three bids "within a competitive range of each other" and that the Price Producers Index (PPI) for 1994-1997 showed the cost of the ingredients used to manufacture the primers had increased by 13.5 percent during that period. On May 8, awards were made to Hanley on item 3 and Durant on items 2 and 4. Crawford learned of the awards on May 20 and protested on May 21. Crawford's protest that the agency failed to solicit Crawford is untimely. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, this allegation was required to be filed not later than 10 days after the basis for protest was known, or should have been known. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1997). It is the duty of a protester to diligently pursue the information necessary to determine its basis of protest. Douglas Glass Co., B-237752, Feb. 9, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 175 at 2.