Downtown Legal Copies, B-289432, January 7, 2002

B-289432 Jan 07, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Contention that agency wrongly rejected protester's low bid for copying services after determining that it was not responsible is denied where the record as a whole shows that the agency's nonresponsibility determination was not unreasonable. DECISION Downtown Legal Copies (DLC) protests the determination that it is not a responsible bidder. The successful bidder is to produce. GPO concluded that DLC was not a responsible bidder. The content of these agency declarations was again contested by the protester with more declarations in its final filing. Several have been. Which are needed to explain and resolve this protest. Were both leased after September 1. One day after bids were opened. View Decision Downtown Legal Copies, B-289432, January 7, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Downtown Legal Copies (DLC) protests the determination that it is not a responsible bidder, and the resulting rejection of its low bid, by the Government Printing Office (GPO) under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 2085S, issued to procure color and black-and-white copying services for the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, and various other federal agencies with offices in the Juneau, Alaska area. DLC argues that the agency's nonresponsibility determination lacks a reasonable basis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The IFB here contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity requirements contract for a period of 1 year, followed by four 1-year options. The successful bidder is to produce, at a facility within a 35-mile radius of Juneau, flat forms and books requiring black and color copying, an assortment of binding styles, packing, labeling, and delivery. The IFB estimated an annual average of 64 form orders and 157 book orders, with most orders copied or printed on standard-sized (8 by 11 inches or smaller) paper. In addition, the IFB identified 14 different types of stock to be used in the printing orders covered by the contract. The IFB also provided a detailed breakdown of its estimates for form and book orders. For example, the IFB estimated that 39 of the 64 form orders would involve black-and-white copies, and 14 of those orders would be for 500 to 5,000 copies; similarly, the IFB advised that the average book order would be for 144 copies, with an average page count of 284 pages. /1/ In addition, the IFB anticipated that most orders would be completed within 3 workdays, but required that bidders be prepared to provide same-day service on approximately 2 percent of the anticipated orders, limited to orders not requiring more than 10,000 impressions. By the September 18, 2001, bid opening date, DLC submitted the low bid ($217,618.95), with the next-low bid ($253,316.50) submitted by the incumbent, Copy Express. After conducting a responsibility review that included a site visit to DLC's Juneau facility, GPO concluded that DLC was not a responsible bidder, and that award should be made to Copy Express. Specifically, GPO concluded that DLC had not shown the ability to produce the work required, adequate staffing, or evidence of "quality and/or production control." Determination and Findings (D&F), Sept. 28, 2001. By letter dated October 1, the contracting officer advised DLC of this determination, and this protest followed. During the course of this protest, DLC challenged many of the factual assertions made and conclusions reached by GPO during this responsibility review. Many of these challenges took the form of direct rebuttal, by sworn declarations, of GPO's allegedly factual assertions about the review, which had been set forth in narrative form in the agency's report. In response to these challenges raised by the protester in its comments filing, GPO answered with sworn declarations from the contracting officer (CO), who found DLC to be nonresponsible, and from the contracting officer's representative (COR), who conducted the review and made the site visit upon which the CO relied. The content of these agency declarations was again contested by the protester with more declarations in its final filing. To assist in reconciling these disparate accounts of the facts, our Office convened a hearing in this matter, and took testimony from the COR and two DLC witnesses. While not every dispute has been reconciled, several have been. As a result, we set forth below additional facts, ultimately not in dispute, which are needed to explain and resolve this protest. DLC's bid listed its address as 175 South Franklin Street, Juneau, Alaska. DLC had been operating since 1995 in Anchorage, and prior to submitting its bid here, DLC had no presence in Juneau. To participate in this procurement, DLC "made substantial investments at substantial cost to ensure its performance capability . . . ." Protest at 7.