Molly Maguires, B-278056, December 22, 1997

B-278056 Dec 22, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest against Government Printing Office's nonresponsibility determination is denied where it was based on the protester's unsatisfactory technical capability. The fact that most of the work samples provided by the protester were illustrations rather than published design work as required under the solicitation. That the agency was unable to verify the protester's claimed experience. Molly Maguires contends that the nonresponsibility determination lacked a reasonable basis and was made in bad faith. Firms selected to perform the contract must have. When bids were opened on July 31. Molly Maguires was the apparent low bidder. The letter was written by the judge and addressed to an advertising firm. View Decision Matter of: Molly Maguires File: B-278056 Date: December 22, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Molly Maguires protests its rejection as nonresponsible under an invitation for bids (IFB) designated as Program 3216-M, issued by the Government Printing Office (GPO) for graphic design services. Molly Maguires contends that the nonresponsibility determination lacked a reasonable basis and was made in bad faith. We deny the protest. Program 3216-M contemplated the award of multiple 1-year contracts for the procurement of graphic design services for the Defense Automated Printing Service. Section 1, the general terms and conditions of the solicitation, stated that, because of the creative nature of the work required under Program 3216-M, firms selected to perform the contract must have, among other things, "[e]xperience, including references, reputation, and record of accomplishment in designing and illustrating projects of a similar size, scope, and complexity." The solicitation also advised that, in order to determine bidder responsibility, the agency may conduct a pre- award survey or require the submission of other evidence of artistic, technical, production, managerial, financial, and similar abilities. When bids were opened on July 31, Molly Maguires was the apparent low bidder. During the ensuing pre-award survey, Molly Maguires provided the agency representative with a "Capabilities Statement" outlining, among other things, the background of the owner/principal of the firm; the firm's financial status, equipment and supplies; and a list of 12 corporate clients. The protester provided neither an address or phone number for any of these 12 references, nor the name of a specific contact for any of the references. Molly Maguires also provided GPO with a copy of a letter of reference from a judge in whose courtroom Molly Maguires's principal had done case illustrations and artwork for a TV news program. The letter was written by the judge and addressed to an advertising firm. The protester also submitted a letter from an art college in Philadelphia certifying that Molly Maguires's principal had graduated from the college in 1987. In the agency's August 15 record of Molly Maguires's pre-award survey, the agency representative noted the size of the studio and the available equipment. On the survey report, the agency representative specifically noted that the protester's technical capability was unsatisfactory, that most work samples shown to the agency representative were illustrations rather than published design samples, that the limited number of graphics samples did not appear to be recently produced, and that Molly Maguires would not relinquish the samples, so the agency photocopied them. [1] The agency representative concluded that the protester provided "no evidence [that] the contractor is proficient at producing production-ready art, either electronically or mechanically." The record of the survey also shows that the agency representative contacted four businesses referenced by Molly Maguires as previous clients, but that none of the personnel contacted by the agency representative were able to confirm that Molly Maguires had done business for the firm. Because Molly Maguires failed to furnish acceptable samples and it did not appear that the firm was able to produce production-ready work, and because the agency could not verify Molly Maguires's references or current clients, the agency determined that Molly Maguires was nonresponsible. [2] The agency awarded contracts to three bidders and, upon learning of the award and of the nonresponsibility determination, Molly Maguires protested to this Office. Molly Maguires protests that the nonresponsibility determination was unreasonable because it was based on an improper pre-award survey. Specifically, the protester argues that it was "never ever asked for a list of references" but, as noted above, provided the list of corporate clients and two letters of reference.