B-400224.2, Hendry Corporation, August 25, 2008

B-400224.2 Aug 25, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hendry Corporation protests the award of a contract to RiverHawk Marine, LLC by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Coast Guard under request for quotations No. HSCG80-08-Q-3FAD73 for dry-dock repairs to a Coast Guard cutter. Hendry challenges the agency's determination that RiverHawk is a responsible firm on two grounds. Hendry alleges that three founding members of RiverHawk "do not have a satisfactory record of performance, integrity, and business ethics," Protest at 3, because, during their course of employment at a previous firm, they took action that resulted in the bankruptcy of that company and default on two Coast Guard vessel repair contracts, and because, in violation of a non-compete agreement, they made plans to form RiverHawk while affiliated with that other firm. We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it does not establish a basis for our review of the agency's responsibility determination. View Decision B-400224.2, Hendry Corporation, August 25, 2008 Decision Matter of: Hendry Corporation File: B-400224.2 Date: August 25, 2008 Kent P. Smith, Esq., Smith Currie & Hancock LLP, for the protester. Bruce C. Smith, Esq., Robert C. Threlkeld, Esq., and James M. Johnson, Esq., Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, for RiverHawk Marine, LLC, the intervenor. Wilbert Jones, Esq., U.S. Coast Guard, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging contracting officer's affirmative determination of responsibility regarding the awardee is dismissed where the assertion on which the protest is based—failure to consider allegedly poor business performance by principal members of the awardee during their association with a previous firm—does not constitute the type of information that, by its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible, as required under Government Accountability Office (GAO) Bid Protest Regulations for GAO review of such a protest. DECISION Hendry Corporation protests the award of a contract to RiverHawk Marine, LLC by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Coast Guard under request for quotations No. HSCG80-08-Q-3FAD73 for dry-dock repairs to a Coast Guard cutter. Hendry challenges the agency's determination that RiverHawk is a responsible firm on two grounds. Hendry alleges that three founding members of RiverHawk –do not have a satisfactory record of performance, integrity, and business ethics,— Protest at 3, because, during their course of employment at a previous firm, they took action that resulted in the bankruptcy of that company and default on two Coast Guard vessel repair contracts, and because, in violation of a non-compete agreement, they made plans to form RiverHawk while affiliated with that other firm.[1] We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it does not establish a basis for our review of the agency's responsibility determination. We will consider a protest of an affirmative determination of responsibility only where it is alleged that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation were not met, or where the protest identifies evidence raising serious concerns that, in reaching the responsibility determination, the contracting officer unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information or otherwise violated statute or regulation. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(c) (2008); T.F. Boyle Transp., Inc., B-310708.2, Jan. 29, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 52 at 5. The protest allegations here focus on the latter type of case. In that context, we will review a challenge to an agency's affirmative responsibility determination where the protester presents 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. Verestar Gov't Servs. Group, B-291854, B-291854.2, Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 68 at 4-5. We therefore have reviewed credible allegations that an agency failed to properly consider that a contractor committed fraud, FN Mfg., Inc., B-297172.2, Dec. 1, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 212 at 11-12, that principals of a contractor had criminal convictions, Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., B-292476, Oct. 1, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 177 at 5, or that a contractor engaged in improper financial practices and improperly reported earnings. Verestar Gov't Servs. Group, supra. In contrast, we will not review unsupported allegations of illegal action, such as insider trading, MD Helicopters, Inc.; AgustaWestland, Inc., B-298502 et al., Oct. 23, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 164 at 41 n.40, or allegations concerning financial issues confronting a contractor, such as cash on hand and declining net worth.