B-299674; B-299743; B-299746, International Garment Processors, July 17, 2007

B-299674; B-299743; B-299746, International Garment Processors, July 17, 2007 TITLE: B-299674; B-299743; B-299746, International Garment Processors, July 17, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299674; B-299743; B-299746 DATE: July 17, 2007 ***************************************************************************** B-299674; B-299743; B-299746, International Garment Processors, July 17, 2007 Decision Matter of: International Garment Processors File: B-299674; B-299743; B-299746 Date: July 17, 2007 J. C. Viramontes for the protester. Christine M. Choi, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging bias against protester and favoritism toward awardee is denied where record fails to support protester's allegations. 2. Protest of the scope of solicitation amendment's work requirements is denied where record shows amendment reasonably reflects agency's anticipated needs. 3. Protest of agency's rejection of protester's revised quotation as late is denied where there is no evidence that the quotation was actually received at the designated location prior to the closing time. DECISION International Garment Processors (IGP) has filed three protests with our Office. The firm's initial protest (B-299674) challenges an award to Supreme Laundry and Cleaners under solicitation No. W911SG-07-T-3000, issued by the Department of the Army for dry cleaning, laundry, and sewing services for personnel and programs at Fort Bliss, Texas. IGP primarily contends that the agency has made a series of misstatements that call into question the credibility of agency contract personnel, and that an agency evaluator was biased against IGP and favored Supreme. IGP's second protest (B-299743) challenges the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911SG-07-T-0201, issued for limited interim laundry services during the pendency of IGP's protest of the Supreme contract. IGP's third protest (B-299746) challenges the agency's determination that the protester's revised quotation for the interim work was not timely received by the agency. We deny the protests. Award to Supreme The solicitation, posted on the FedBizOpps website on February 13, 2007, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, requirements-type contract to the offeror submitting the technically acceptable, low-priced offer. IGP requested and received an emailed copy of the performance work statement (PWS) from the agency on February 13. The PWS was forwarded with another copy of the solicitation that the contracting specialist explains she had retyped to fix formatting problems in the original solicitation document; this copy of the solicitation mistakenly included a closing date of February 23 instead of the original date of February 26. The protester submitted questions about the solicitation to the agency on February 21. On February 23, IGP emailed the agency that it had not yet received a response to its solicitation questions. The contracting specialist (who had initially told the protester that the responses to its questions had been posted electronically a day earlier, but subsequently learned that the earlier attempt to do so had been unsuccessful) posted the agency's responses on the FedBizOpps website on February 23. In the meantime, IGP had filed an agency-level protest challenging the agency's failure to answer its questions. IGP also argued that, since notices posted at Fort Bliss to inform personnel that the on-site laundry facility was closing stated that the laundry work would be done "downtown," it was apparent, at least to IGP, that the agency had already determined that the successful firm would be located "downtown."[1] By letter dated February 23, the contracting officer dismissed the protest, noting that answers had since been provided and a new closing date of March 6 had been scheduled. The agency also assured the protester that there was no predetermined contractor for the award and that the reference to "downtown" was intended to inform personnel that the work was going to be contracted out.[2] On February 26, IGP filed an agency-level challenge to the adverse ruling on its protest, reiterating its prior concerns, requesting to be treated in a fair manner, and challenging the contracting specialist's explanation that the February 23 closing date had only been a typographical error in a retyped version of the solicitation.