Pacific Photocopy and Research Services, B-281127, December

B-281127 Dec 29, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest against nonresponsibility determination is denied where the determination was reasonably based upon the contracting officer's conclusion that the protester's recent contract performance on similar work was inadequate because of consistently high volume of unresolved customer complaints. Courts that Pacific is nonresponsible. Pacific asserts that the nonresponsibility determination lacked a reasonable basis and was made in bad faith. BACKGROUND A predecessor IFB was issued on March 2. Section H.2 of the IFB entitled "Conduct" provided that: "Vendors will be providing services to the public and all conduct by Vendors may affect the public's opinion of the Court. Vendors are expected to provide timely. View Decision Matter of: Pacific Photocopy and Research Services File: B-281127 Date: December 29, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Pacific Photocopy and Research Services protests the determination by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that Pacific is nonresponsible, under an unnumbered invitation for bid (IFB) for a licensing agreement to provide copy center services for the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. Pacific asserts that the nonresponsibility determination lacked a reasonable basis and was made in bad faith. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND A predecessor IFB was issued on March 2, 1998, seeking bids to provide both off-site and on-site vendor operated copy centers to furnish copying and related services for the provision of court documents to the public for the divisional offices of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida (FLSBC) located in Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Miami. Section H.2 of the IFB entitled "Conduct" provided that: "Vendors will be providing services to the public and all conduct by Vendors may affect the public's opinion of the Court. Therefore, Vendors are expected to provide timely, courteous service to the public, and conduct business in a fashion befitting the Court at all times." The IFB instructed vendors to provide along with their bids a list of three private references, as well as all courts for which the vendor had previously provided copying and/or related services to the public. The IFB stated that "[a]ward will be made to the responsive, responsible vendor submitting the lowest aggregate price." IFB at 42. The court received seven bids by the March 18 due date, of which Pacific's was low. At that time Pacific had been performing the services being acquired for the FLSBC since 1993. On April 1, the contracting officer determined that, while Pacific was the lowest bidder, it was not a responsible vendor and award was made to the next lowest, responsible bidder, Americo. /1/ The contracting officer's nonresponsibility determination was based upon Pacific's unsatisfactory and deficient performance for the FLSBC, as well as its poor performance as the copy center vendor for the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida (FLSDC) and the U. S. Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida (FLMBC). The clerks at each of the courts where Pacific had provided copying services expressed their substantial dissatisfaction with Pacific's performance, and stated that they had received a constant stream of verbal and written complaints from the public regarding Pacific's performance. The contracting officer also determined that as the incumbent contractor that Pacific had consistently breached the terms of the license agreement despite repeated notices by the clerk of the FLSBC to Pacific regarding those infractions. The next lowest bidder on this IFB, Americo, was then awarded the license agreement for the FLSBC. Subsequently, effective August 14, Americo was terminated for poor performance. On August 11, the IFB in question here was issued to all interested vendors to provide these same copying services. The court received two bids, and again Pacific was the apparent low bidder. The contracting officer then reexamined and reevaluated Pacific's responsibility, endeavoring to obtain the most current information concerning Pacific's performance. Because at the time Pacific was providing copy services for the FLMBC, the court contacted each of the three divisional managers in the three separate court locations for the FLMBC located in Orlando, Tampa, and Jacksonville, to discuss Pacific's performance as the current copy service vendor. Each of the court managers reported that the court continued to receive written and oral complaints regarding Pacific's performance. The complaints primarily concerned Pacific's billing practices, the professionalism of Pacific's staff, and the timeliness with which the public was provided with requested copies of court documents.