American Office Services, Inc.

B-290511 Jul 05, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested the issuance of a DOJ contract award for painting metal library shelving units and associated items at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building in Washington D.C., contending that its quoted price was lower than the awardee's. GAO held that although the protester's price quote was lower than the awardee's, its past performance references were not as strong, and DOJ determined that awardee's superior past performance was worth the higher price. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision American Office Services, Inc., B-290511, July 5, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION American Office Services, Inc. (AOS) protests the issuance of a purchase order to On-Site Electrostatic Painting, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DOJ-FAS-2-02-04, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for painting metal library shelving units and associated items at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C. AOS contends that it should have received the purchase order because its quoted price was lower than On-Site's. We deny the protest. On March 29, 2002, DOJ posted a combined synopsis/solicitation (the RFQ) on the Internet calling for the electrostatic painting of approximately 1,200 linear feet of seven-shelf metal bookcases and approximately 2,000 square feet of metal decking. Agency Report (AR), Tab A, Synopsis/Solicitation, at 1-2. The solicitation, set aside for small business, stated that simplified acquisition procedures applied to the procurement, see Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13, and that award would be made on a "best value" basis considering price, contractor experience completing similar projects within secure facilities, and references. AR, Tab A, Synopsis/Solicitation, at 2. The solicitation advised vendors to submit at least three references. Id. Four quotations were received, including the protester's at $29,950 and On-Site's at $32,980. AOS furnished five references, including one from the current contracting officer's technical representative (COTR), who also had been the COTR under phase one of this project, for which AOS had been the painting contractor. On-Site listed three references. The agency contacted On-Site's three references, and four of AOS's references, including the COTR. /1/ The agency found that "AOS's references were not as strong as what DOJ desired for performance under this contract," AR at 2, and that On-Site's were superior to AOS's. Specifically, of the four AOS references contacted, the agency found that only one was very positive--this reference stated that he would recommend AOS again because the vendor was on time and within budget and provided "good quality" work. AR, Tab D, COTR's Summary of the AOS References, at 1. A second reference stated that he would recommend AOS but that, because AOS's work for this reference was narrow in scope, he had only limited knowledge of the vendor. Id. at 2. A third reference reportedly left a voice mail message with the COTR stating that, on a prior project involving cabinet painting, some of AOS's work arrived scratched and/or damaged, and that his company preferred to use another vendor. Id. Finally, the COTR rated AOS's performance on phase 1 of this project only "marginally acceptable," because AOS "left lines, and drips and swirls on the shelves . . . [and] overspray on some wood surfaces." AR, Tab B, Declaration of COTR, at 3-4. In contrast, the COTR found that On-Site's three references "reflect uniformly very strong recommendations." AR, Tab B, Declaration of COTR, at 4. Specifically, one reference stated that she "absolutely would recommend" On-Site because the vendor worked within the schedule and budget, and provided good quality work. AR, Tab C, COTR's Summary of the On-Site References, at 1. The second reference stated that On-Site did "excellent work," worked within budget and showed up on time. This reference stated that On-Site was the only contractor he would use in the future. Id. The third reference, noting that On-Site was very professional and prepared, stated that he "highly recommended" On-Site because "they are the ones to do the job right." Id. Concluding that On-Site's references were sufficiently superior to AOS's to offset AOS's lower price, the agency selected On-Site as the best value vendor. AOS challenges the agency's determination that On-Site's references were superior to its own. Specifically, it maintains that the COTR gave "false and misleading information" to the contracting officer concerning its references. Protester's May 14, 2002 Submission, at 1. AOS states that its third reference, when presented with the COTR's account of his voice mail message, "adamantly" denied that he made negative comments regarding AOS's work, id., and told AOS that he had provided the agency a "glowing" recommendation.