Bluff Springs Paper Company, Ltd./R.D. Thompson Paper Products, B-286797.3, August 13, 2001

B-286797.3 Aug 13, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A joint venture that was the evaluated next low bidder on the original procurement. GPO determined that the joint venture was nonresponsible due to unacceptable past performance. The joint venture argues that GPO failed to recognize that the performance record of the joint venture itself was the most relevant responsibility information. The statutes and regulations governing federal procurements are not strictly applicable to reprocurements of defaulted requirements. We will review a reprocurement to determine whether the agency acted reasonably under the circumstances. GPO's determination to eliminate the joint venture from consideration for the reprocurement was reasonable. Even though Esselte's late percentage was 33 percent (1 out of 3 contracts). View Decision Bluff Springs Paper Company, Ltd./R.D. Thompson Paper Products Company, Inc. Joint Venture, B-286797.3, August 13, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Bluff Springs Paper Company, Ltd./R.D. Thompson Paper Products Company, Inc. Joint Venture protests the award of a contract to Esselte Corporation pursuant to the Government Printing Office's (GPO) reprocurement of modular disability folders under program No. C684-S. The joint venture asserts that GPO improperly found it nonresponsible, and thus ineligible for award. We deny the protest. The reprocurement followed the termination for default of a contract for the requirement that had been awarded to Thom-Tex Paper Converting Corporation. The contracting officer, reprocuring without resoliciting, first considered the feasibility of an award to the joint venture, since it had been the evaluated next low bidder after Thom-Tex under the original competition. However, based upon October 19, 2000 preaward surveys of Bluff Springs and R.D. Thompson individually, GPO determined that the joint venture was nonresponsible due to unacceptable past performance, and therefore issued a purchase order to Esselte on October 23. Agency Report, June 1, 2001, at 1-2; Reaward of Program C684-S, Oct. 20, 2000; Repurchase of Program C684-S, Oct. 20, 2000. On October 31, in response to an agency-level protest from the joint venture, GPO reaffirmed the determination not to negotiate with the joint venture, based in part on a new, October 30 preaward survey, which indicated significant late performance by the joint venture. Reevaluation of Repurchase After Default, Program C684-S, Oct. 31, 2000. The joint venture argues that GPO failed to recognize that the performance record of the joint venture itself was the most relevant responsibility information, and also improperly failed to look behind the numerical data and consider information--such as the reasons for any delays, and whether the contractors had taken corrective action--that might bear on the likelihood of successful performance. The protester notes that GPO's Printing Procurement Regulation (PPR), chapter I, section 5, subsection 6, requires the contracting officer to base nonresponsibility determinations on "all available information." Generally, the statutes and regulations governing federal procurements are not strictly applicable to reprocurements of defaulted requirements. Montage, Inc., B-277923.2, Dec. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 176 at 2. In particular, under the standard termination for default clause incorporated into GPO solicitations and contracts, the contracting officer may reprocure "under the terms and in the manner the Contracting Officer considers appropriate" for the repurchase. GPO Contract Terms, Pub. No. 310.2, Contract Clauses Sec. 20(a)(2)(b). We will review a reprocurement to determine whether the agency acted reasonably under the circumstances. Marvin Land Sys., Inc., B-276434, B-276434.2, June 12, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 4 at 3. GPO's determination to eliminate the joint venture from consideration for the reprocurement was reasonable. The October 2000 preaward surveys, based on the most recent 13 months of contractor compliance data, represented the data most relevant to assessing the likelihood of successful performance. The October 19 preaward surveys indicated that the joint venturers individually had performed late on numerous jobs, with Bluff Springs late on 16 of 31 jobs, or 52 percent, and R.D. Thompson late on 6 of 25 jobs, or 24 percent. Likewise, the October 30 preaward survey indicated that the joint venture itself had been late on 8 of 31 jobs, or 26 percent. /1/ In contrast, the October 19 preaward survey indicated that Esselte had been late on only one job (of the three jobs reflected in the data), and Esselte had satisfactorily performed a contract for modular disability folders as recently as April 2000.