Shinwha Electronics, B-290603; B-290603.2; B-290931; B-290932, B-290932.2, B-291064, September 3, 2002

Shinwha Electronics, B-290603; B-290603.2; B-290931; B-290932, B-290932.2, B-291064, September 3, 2002 TITLE: Shinwha Electronics, B-290603; B-290603.2; B-290931; B-290932, B-290932.2, B-291064, September 3, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290603; B-290603.2; B-290931; B-290932, B-290932.2, B-291064 DATE: September 3, 2002 ********************************************************************** Shinwha Electronics, B-290603; B-290603.2; B-290931; B-290932, B-290932.2, B-291064, September 3, 2002 Decision Matter of: Shinwha Electronics File: B-290603; B-290603.2; B-290931; B-290932, B-290932.2, B-291064 Date: September 3, 2002 Holly A. Roth, Esq., and Stephen M. Ryan, Esq., Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, for the protester. Captain Gregory A. Moritz, Department of the Army, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that offeror was improperly suspended from receiving government contracts is denied where there is no evidence that the agency acted arbitrarily to avoid making an award to an offeror otherwise entitled to award and where the minimum standards of due process have been met. 2. General Accounting Office, under its bid protest function, will no longer review protests that an agency improperly suspended or debarred a contractor, as the contracting agency is the appropriate forum for suspension and debarment disputes. DECISION Shinwha Electronics protests its exclusion from the competition for award of a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAJB03-02-R-0084, issued by the Department of the Army for the maintenance and repair of fire alarm and detection systems at Kunsan Air Base, Korea. Shinwha was precluded from competing on the basis of its status as a suspended contractor. Shinwha contends that its suspension was improper, and that the company's resulting exclusion from the competition was, therefore, also improper. We deny this protest (B-290932). Shinwha also filed five other protests raising issues in addition to those concerning its suspension. As explained below, we dismiss these protests on the ground that, as a suspended contractor, Shinwha is not an interested party to maintain the protests. The RFP, issued on April 29, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 6-month base period, with one 3-month option period, to provide maintenance and repair services of fire alarm and detection systems at Kunsan Air Base, Korea. Six offerors, including Shinwha, submitted proposals by the amended closing date. The agency determined, after conducting an evaluation, that none of the proposals were technically acceptable and decided to clarify the technical requirements in a revised solicitation. Shinwha was precluded from further competition on the subject procurement on June 25 when the Army suspended the company and its president from receiving government contracts. The Army notified Shinwha that the company had been suspended from government contracting, pending completion of a criminal investigation of fraud allegedly committed by Shinwha under contract No. DAJB03-00-D-0082, for the maintenance and repair of fire life safety systems at American military installations throughout Korea. According to the Army, the basis for the suspension was that *Shinwha, with the knowledge of [its president] and its other officers and managers, uttered and transmitted to the United States, with the intent of obtaining unearned payment, false records of and false invoices for work purportedly but not actually performed, and obtained payment for some of the work falsely alleged by Shinwha.*[1] Agency Report, July 22, 2002 (AR 1), Tab G, Notification of Suspension of Shinwha. The letter also stated that Shinwha was permitted to submit information and argument in opposition to the suspension. On June 26, Shinwha advised the agency that it opposed the suspension and would prove the underlying allegations were wrong. Shinwha also asked the Army to provide it with a copy of all documents forming the basis of the suspension decision, and requested a fact-finding proceeding. AR 1, Tab F, Acknowledgment of Receipt of Suspension. In a subsequent letter, Shinwha requested greater specificity about the fraud allegations, asserted that certain information obtained as part of the Army's investigation of Shinwha violated attorney-client privilege, and alleged continuing misconduct against Shinwha by agency contracting officials. Agency Report, August 12, 2002 (AR 2), Tab F, Shinwha Letter to Suspending Official, July 12, 2002. Other than these tangential matters, however, Shinwha offered no specific information which purported to refute the substance of the fraud allegations.[2] In its protest, Shinwha argues that its suspension from government contracting was improperly imposed.