Mail Boxes Etc., B-281487, February 16, 1999

B-281487 Feb 16, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably determined that protester was nonresponsible based upon conclusion that protester lacked equipment necessary to perform the contract where protester failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that it had or could obtain the required equipment in time to meet the solicitation's delivery schedule. (MBE) protests the determination by the Government Printing Office (GPO) that it is nonresponsible under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 2085S for electrostatic copying services for the Department of Agriculture. The successful bidder is to produce flat forms and books requiring such operations as electrostatic. The CO reviewed MBE's response and concluded that MBE did not have the necessary equipment on hand to perform the contract and had not provided any evidence of its ability to obtain the necessary equipment in sufficient time to begin performance in accordance with the IFB's schedule. /1/ In a letter received by MBE on October 22. View Decision Matter of: Mail Boxes Etc. File: B-281487 Date: February 16, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Mail Boxes Etc. (MBE) protests the determination by the Government Printing Office (GPO) that it is nonresponsible under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 2085S for electrostatic copying services for the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Forest Service, and various other agencies located in the Juneau, Alaska area. MBE argues that the nonresponsibility determination lacks a reasonable basis. We deny the protest. The IFB contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity requirements contract for copying services. IFB at 4. The successful bidder is to produce flat forms and books requiring such operations as electrostatic, thermal or other copying process, color copying, binding, packing, labeling, and delivery. Id. at 6. The IFB estimated an average of 42 orders each month, with as many as 10 orders placed in one day, for approximately 504 orders annually. Id. The IFB also listed estimated quantities of copies per order, ranging from 20 to 2,000 copies per order of flat forms and from 1 to 3,000 copies per order of books. Id. MBE submitted the low bid by the October 15, 1998 bid opening date. In order to make a responsibility determination, the contracting officer (CO) requested that MBE provide a list of all of its equipment and suppliers, as well as information regarding the firm's financial resources. In response, MBE provided GPO with the requested information, including a list of its equipment which MBE set out under two categories: "EQUIPMENT ON PREMISES" and "EQUIPMENT ON ORDER/READY TO BE SHIPPED." MBE provided no further details or explanation regarding the equipment it identified as being "on order." The CO reviewed MBE's response and concluded that MBE did not have the necessary equipment on hand to perform the contract and had not provided any evidence of its ability to obtain the necessary equipment in sufficient time to begin performance in accordance with the IFB's schedule. /1/ In a letter received by MBE on October 22, the CO informed MBE that the firm was considered nonresponsible because it did not currently have all of the equipment on hand necessary to perform the contract. Specifically, the CO's letter informed MBE that the firm was found nonresponsible /2/ because the firm had not performed any GPO contracts; that its equipment was on order contingent upon MBE receiving the award; and that it could not be determined exactly when the equipment would be installed and ready for use in performing the contract. On October 22, MBE filed an agency-level protest, and before the CO could issue a decision on that protest, MBE filed the instant protest in our Office. The GPO's Printing Procurement Regulations (PPR) require the CO to make an affirmative determination that a firm is responsible before awarding a contract to that firm. PPR I-5.1. In order to receive a favorable responsibility rating, an offeror must meet several minimum standards applicable to the procurement, including having a satisfactory record of performance regarding both quality and timeliness on previously-awarded contracts, and possessing, or having the ability to obtain, the necessary equipment, technical skills, and productive capacity to perform the contract. PPR I-5.4(iii) and (iv). The PPR specifically state that prospective contractors must affirmatively demonstrate that they are responsible through satisfactory performance on prior similar contracts or by presenting evidence of their ability to satisfy the contract requirements. PPR I-5.5. The PPR require that the CO make a nonresponsibility determination if, based on the available information, there is no clear indication that the prospective contractor meets those minimum standards. PPR I-5.6.