Thorner Press, Inc., B-283545, November 4, 1999

B-283545 Nov 04, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging geographical restriction in solicitation for printing services limiting bids to firms whose production facilities are within a 75-mile radius of the agency. Is denied where. Agency reasonably determined restriction was necessary to ensure print quality of final publications. GPO is tasked with manufacturing or procuring printed products for the use of the government. 44 U.S.C. Bidders were also informed that a total of 16-21 orders would be issued per year. /1/ AR. " the specifications stated "[i]t is assumed that all production facilities used in the manufacture of the product(s) . . . will be located within a [75-mile] radius of Fort Leavenworth. Arguing that the cancellation was improper and. View Decision Matter of: Thorner Press, Inc. File: B-283545 Date: November 4, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Thorner Press, Inc. protests (1) the Government Printing Office's (GPO) cancellation of an invitation for bids (IFB) for Program 1666-S, under which Thorner submitted the low bid, and (2) GPO's issuance of a second solicitation for basically the same requirement with a production area restriction that makes Thorner ineligible to compete. We deny the protest. GPO is tasked with manufacturing or procuring printed products for the use of the government. 44 U.S.C. Secs. 501, 502 (1994). Program 1666-S contemplates a contract for a duration of 1 year, with 2 option years, on behalf of the Defense Automated Printing Service for procurement of the Military Review, a periodical issued by the Department of the Army. Agency Report (AR) at 1-2 and Tab 1, Solicitation, at 1. On May 24, 1999, GPO issued the original solicitation, including the specifications, with bid opening set for June 21. The specifications called for the production of six bimonthly editions in English, six bimonthly editions in Spanish, and four quarterly editions in Portuguese. Bidders were also informed that a total of 16-21 orders would be issued per year. /1/ AR, Tab 1, at 6. Under the heading "Production Area," the specifications stated "[i]t is assumed that all production facilities used in the manufacture of the product(s) . . . will be located within a [75-mile] radius of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas." AR, Tab 1, at 1. The IFB also stated that travel expenses and per diem incurred by the government for press sheet inspections would be a factor in determining award. AR, Tab 1, at 12. Thorner, with production facilities in Buffalo, New York, submitted the low bid. Per diem and travel estimates for two government employees to conduct press sheet inspections at Thorner's production facility increased its bid by $11,232, AR at 2, but Thorner's bid remained low ($139,920, compared to the next low bid of $143,572) even when increased by this amount. AR, Tab 7, Memorandum from Contracting Officer to Contract Review Board (July 22, 1999). GPO then determined that the original specifications did not reflect the customer agency's intentions. The Army had intended that the "assumed production area" language in the original solicitation would result in a contract being awarded to a local firm. The Army thus decided that the solicitation should be canceled and reissued with the inclusion of an "area restriction." AR at 2 and Tab 7. On July 27, the contracting officer, with the approval of GPO's Contract Review Board, canceled the solicitation and reissued the 1666-S solicitation with the following area restriction: "All production facilities used in the manufacture of the product(s) ordered under this contract must be located within [a 75-mile] radius of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas." AR, Tab 8, Revised Solicitation, at 1. Thorner received the reissued IFB on July 30. Protest at 7. Thorner filed an agency-level protest on August 11, arguing that the cancellation was improper and, alternatively, that the geographic restriction in the reissued IFB--which would prevent Thorner from competing--was improper. GPO denied the protest on August 23, concluding as follows: Given the complexity of [Program 16661-S], quality control and inspections are of vital interest to the customer agency. However, the Army's travel funds for this procurement are limited, and the time constraints upon Army personnel involved with this publication are extensive. Consequently, the Army requires its personnel to be able to drive to the production site to make press sheet inspections and return to their offices in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas on the same day. Given that your client's production facility is located in Buffalo, New York, Army personnel would require a day of travel each way to make press sheet inspections, costing the Army far more time and money by comparison. AR, Tab 11, Letter from Contracting Officer to Protester (Aug. 23, 1999). This protest, in which Thorner reiterates the arguments in its agency-level protest, was filed in our Office on August 31.