Universal Marine & Industrial Services, Inc., B-292964, December 23, 2003

B-292964 Dec 23, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging agency's affirmative determination of awardee's responsibility is denied where record does not support allegation that contracting officer failed to consider available relevant information. There is no showing of a violation of statute or regulation. For steel ocean buoys.Universal principally asserts that the agency improperly determined that Wallace was a responsible prospective contractor. Wallace's bid was low at $10. Universal's was second low at $12. Found that Wallace was satisfactory on all relevant factors. The agency determined that Wallace was responsible and awarded the contract to Wallace on September 30. The protester asserts that Wallace was not established until July 2003. View Decision Universal Marine & Industrial Services, Inc., B-292964, December 23, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Universal Marine & Industrial Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Wallace Fabrication L.L.C. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTCG23-03-B-TCB014, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, for steel ocean buoys.Universal principally asserts that the agency improperly determined that Wallace was a responsible prospective contractor. We deny the protest. The IFB, issued on July 8, 2003 as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a requirements contract for a base year, with four 1-year options. The agency received 11 bids, including Universal's (the incumbent contractor) and Wallace's. Wallace's bid was low at $10,972,440, and Universal's was second low at $12,168,849. On September 16, the agency conducted a preaward survey at Wallace's leased facility on Middle Road in Mobile, Alabama to determine the firm's responsibility. The contracting officer completed a "Determination on Prospective Contractor Responsibility" form for Wallace, indicating that the agency had conducted an on-site preaward survey, and found that Wallace was satisfactory on all relevant factors, including, for example, technical and production capability, equipment and facilities, performance record, quality assurance procedures, financial capability and ability to meet delivery or performance dates. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Determination of Prospective Contractor Responsibility, at 1. Based on these findings, the agency determined that Wallace was responsible and awarded the contract to Wallace on September 30. Universal alleges that the Coast Guard made an improper affirmative determination of responsibility with respect to Wallace. Citing a Dunn and Bradstreet report, the protester argues that the awardee has no manufacturing facilities but operates out of the residence of the owner, has no published telephone number, has no financial statements and a high credit balance of only $500, and has only 1 employee. Protest at 2; Protest, Exhibit 1, Dunn & Bradstreet Report, Oct. 1, 2003, at 1-5. Additionally, the protester asserts that Wallace was not established until July 2003, and has no prior sales. Protest at 2. The protester argues that it is "impossible to fathom" that the general standards of responsibility can be satisfied by a company with no facilities, one employee, and no prior sales. /1/ Id. at 3. Because the determination that an offeror is capable of performing a contract is largely committed to the contracting officer's discretion, our Office generally will not consider a protest challenging an affirmative determination of responsibility, except under limited exceptions. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.Sec. 21.5(c) (2003). We recently revised our Regulations in this regard to add as a specified exception protests "that identify evidence raising serious concerns that, in reaching a particular responsibility determination, the contracting officer unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information or otherwise violated statute or regulation." Id. We explained in the preamble to the revision that it was "intended to encompass protests where, for example, the protest includes specific evidence that the contracting officer may have ignored information that, by its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible. 67 Fed. Reg. 79,833, 79,834 (2002); Verestar Gov't Servs. Group, B-291854, B-291854.2, Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD Para. 68 at 4. While we initially found that Universal's protest was sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirement that a protest raise serious concern that the contracting officer may have failed to consider relevant responsibility information, the record shows that the information cited by Universal is either erroneous or was considered by the contracting officer. First, the record, as reflected in the preaward survey documentation, shows that Wallace was not working out of a private residence, but out of a fabrication facility.