Pacific Photocopy and Research Services, B-278698; B-

Pacific Photocopy and Research Services, B-278698; B- BNUMBER: B-278698; B-278698.3 DATE: March 4, 1998 TITLE: Pacific Photocopy and Research Services, B-278698; B- 278698.3, March 4, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Pacific Photocopy and Research Services File: B-278698; B-278698.3 Date:March 4, 1998 Bernard Dane Stein, Esq., for the protester. Harry D. Lewis, Esq., for Judicial Research and Retrieval Services, Inc., the intervenor. Roberta M. Echard, Esq., Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably determined that the prior experience and past performance of the awardee of two license agreements for photocopying services were acceptable, and, consistent with the solicitations' evaluation criteria, made award based on the awardees' low prices. DECISION Pacific Photocopy and Research Services protests the award of two license agreements to Judicial Research and Retrieval Services, Inc., under requests for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for off-site copy centers. We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part. The two RFQs provided for the award of 2-year, revocable, non-exclusive license agreements for providing off-site copy services to the public in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida. The RFQs required, among other things, that vendors have certain specified equipment, and set forth estimated quantities of services to be performed during each year of the agreements. The RFQs stated that the "license agreement[s] will be awarded to the responsible vendor who offers the lowest price and is deemed acceptable in the areas of experience and prior performance." To facilitate this evaluation, the RFQs required that each vendor "provide three references for whom the vendor has provided similar services," and "a list of any courts for which they are, or previously have, performed similar photocopying and related services."[1] The agency received quotes from two firms in response to the West Palm Beach RFQ, and quotes from three firms in response to the Fort Lauderdale RFQ. Judicial Research submitted the lowest quotes for both locations. The agency contacted the references provided by the vendors, and based upon their responses, determined that each of the quotes was acceptable. On October 6, 1997, the agency awarded the license agreements to Judicial Research as the firm submitting the lowest acceptable quotes. Pacific Photocopy, the incumbent contractor, protested the awards to the agency by letter dated October 10. This protest was denied by the agency on November 12 (received by Pacific Photocopy on November 13). On November 24, Pacific Photocopy timely filed its protest against the awards with our Office. Pacific Photocopy argues, consistent with its agency-level protest, that Judicial Research's quotes should have been rejected by the agency as unacceptable because that firm lacks an acceptable level of prior experience. The protester argues that "[i]t is clear from the responses which [the agency] got to its inquiries . . . that those interviewed and the references which were obtained did not or could not differentiate [Judicial Research], the bidder, from its [principal]." The protester contends that the experience of Judicial Research's principal, or president, should not have been considered by the agency because the president's experience is solely the result of his past employment by Pacific Photocopy. The evaluation of competing quotations is primarily a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency, which we will examine solely to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. MAC's Gen. Contractor, B-276755, July 24, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 29 at 3. The record here provides no support for the protester's assertion that Judicial Research's references did not or could not differentiate between Judicial Research and its principal, and thus no support for the protester's contention that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable. The three references provided by Judicial Research in its quote were contacted by the agency. The record of the reference checks, which consists of three completed "Question Sheet for Reference Checks," shows that the agency was seeking comments as to the performance of Judicial Research as a vendor. According to the question sheets, each reference confirmed Judicial Research's experience in providing similar services and the reference's satisfaction with Judicial Research's performance.