Gray Graphics Corporation, B-295421, February 18, 2005

B-295421 Feb 18, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gray Graphics Corporation protests the award of a contract to McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc. under an invitation for bids (IFB) designated as Program 645-S, issued by the Government Printing Office (GPO) for printing services. Gray Graphics contends that GPO improperly found it nonresponsible, and thus ineligible for award. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295421, Gray Graphics Corporation, February 18, 2005 Decision Matter of: Gray Graphics Corporation File: B-295421 Date: February 18, 2005 Anthony Hawks, Esq., for the protester. LaTonya D. Hayes, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protesters allegation that agency improperly rejected its low bid for printing services after determining that it was nonresponsible is denied; agencys nonresponsibility determination was reasonable based on information showing that protester had made late deliveries under recent contracts. DECISION Gray Graphics Corporation protests the award of a contract to McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc. under an invitation for bids (IFB) designated as Program 645-S, issued by the Government Printing Office (GPO) for printing services. Gray Graphics contends that GPO improperly found it nonresponsible, and thus ineligible for award. We deny the protest. Program 645-S contemplated the award of a 1-year requirements contract, with 1option year, for the procurement of printing services for Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports (commonly referred to as GAO Bluebooks). The solicitation called for the contractor to publish approximately 20 to 45 reports per month, with the reports being approximately 8 to 500 pages long, and the time for production and delivery of the reports ranging from 1 to 3 workdays. Both Gray and McDonald submitted responsive bids; Gray bid393,735 and McDonald bid $455,807. Because Grays bid was low, the contracting officer (CO) investigated its past performance to assess its responsibilty. The CO found that Gray recently had delivered several projects late and, on this basis, determined that Gray was nonresponsible. After determining that McDonald, the incumbent, was responsible, the agency made award to that firm. Gray challenged the COs finding of nonresponsibility in an agency-level protest, which GPO denied, and then filed this protest with our Office. Gray principally alleges that the agencys nonresponsibility determination lacked a reasonable basis because its performance history--specifically, the number of delinquencies on its prior contracts--was not so deficient that its ability to satisfactorily perform the contract was in question. A contracting agency has broad discretion in making responsibility determinations, since it must bear the brunt of difficulties experienced in obtaining the required performance. Molly Maquires , B-278056, Dec. 22, 1997, 97-2 CPD 169 at 3. Thus, a contracting officer has the discretion to determine the weight to be accorded the information he or she receives concerning a bidders past performance, that is, to determine whether that past performance indicates there will be problems on the contract to be awarded. Mine Safety Appliances Co. , B-266025, Jan. 17, 1996, 961CPD 86 at 25. Although responsibility determinations must be based on fact, and reached in good faith, they are of necessity a matter of business judgment. Molly Maquires , supra , at 3. We will not question a nonresponsibility determination absent a showing of bad faith on the part of agency officials, or that the determination has no reasonable basis. EPCo Assocs. , B-238015, Apr. 13, 1990, 90-1 CPD 388 at 5. The nonresponsibility determination here was reasonable. The record shows that, at the time the CO made her determination, Gray had performed late on 7 of 215 orders for the previous 3 months, for a 3 percent delinquency rate. While, as the protester notes, this is not a large number in absolute terms, the agency took a practical view of the delinquencies; it notes that, had the protester been performing the GAO contract during the previous year--in which there were 337 orders--its delinquency rate would have resulted in 11 late orders. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Denial of Agency-Level Protest, at 2. Moreover, the agency was concerned that Grays performance history demonstrated a recent upward trend in late deliveries. [1] AR, Tab6, Findings and Determination. In this regard, of the recent late jobs, Gray was late on 2 of 70 jobs, or 3 percent, in July, 4 of 75 jobs, or 5 percent, in September, and 1 of 10 jobs, or 10 percent, for the first half of October. AR, Tab 5.