The Regal Press, Inc. (Program-118-S)

B-420831 Sep 16, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Regal Press, Inc., of Norwood, Massachusetts, protests the cancellation of invitation for bids (IFB) No. Program-118-S, issued by the Government Publishing Office (GPO) for the production of Army certificates and dies. Regal alleges the agency's decision to cancel the IFB was improper because it was based on a flawed evaluation of prices, leading the agency to erroneously find the protester's price to be unreasonably high. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: The Regal Press, Inc. File: B-420831 Date: September 16, 2022 Anthony W. Hawks, Esq., Anthony W. Hawks Law Office, for the protester. James Goodman, III, Esq., Government Publishing Office, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s cancellation of invitation for bids after bid opening was unobjectionable where the agency found the protester’s bid price to be unreasonable based on a comparison of adjusted historical pricing. DECISION The Regal Press, Inc., of Norwood, Massachusetts, protests the cancellation of invitation for bids (IFB) No. Program-118-S, issued by the Government Publishing Office (GPO) for the production of Army certificates and dies. Regal alleges the agency’s decision to cancel the IFB was improper because it was based on a flawed evaluation of prices, leading the agency to erroneously find the protester’s price to be unreasonably high. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The IFB, issued on May 20, 2022, anticipated a single award of a contract for one base year and two 1-year option periods. See Agency Report (AR), Exh. A, IFB at 1; AR, Exh. G, Resolicitation Notice. The procurement was for the manufacturing of dies and the production of printed, stamped, or embossed certificates, requisitioned by the Department of the Army. IFB at 7. Award would be made to the lowest responsive bid. Id. at 17. The deadline for submission of bids was May 27, 2022. IFB at 1. GPO received two timely and responsive bids, including one from the protester. Regal’s price at bid opening was $909,047.71, which was the second lowest price offered. Supp. Memorandum of Law (MOL), attach. 1, May 27 Bid Abstract at 1. After GPO emailed the lowest bidder to confirm bid prices, that bidder informed GPO there was a clerical error in its bid. AR, Exh. D, Mistake in Bid Email at 1-2. As such, on June 10, GPO granted permission for that bidder to withdraw its bid from competition, leaving only Regal’s bid remaining. AR, Exh. E, Notification of Bid Withdrawal at 1. Ultimately, GPO canceled the IFB, finding that the one remaining bid’s (Regal’s) price was unreasonably high. AR, Exh. F, Notice of Unsuccessful Bid. To evaluate the reasonableness of Regal’s price, the agency used, for comparison, historical pricing from a 2020 GPO contract for the same requirement. See AR, Exh. P, 2020 IFB. The contracting officer found that, even after adjusting the prices upwards of 50 percent to account for market price increases, the protester’s bid was still over 80 percent higher than the adjusted historical price. Id. On June 10, GPO notified Regal that the IFB was canceled after bid opening because Regal’s bid price was unreasonable. Notice of Unsuccessful Bid at 1. The requirement (Program-118-S) was then resolicited, with the next bid opening occurring on June 16.[1] Id. Regal submitted its timely protest with our forum on June 21.[2] DISSCUSSION Regal essentially alleges that the agency’s decision to cancel the IFB after bid opening was improper because the decision was based on a flawed evaluation of the reasonableness of Regal’s submitted bid price. When using historical price information to evaluate its price for reasonableness, the protester contends that GPO did not adequately adjust the historical price to account for differing market and economic factors. Protest at 5-8. Notably, Regal argues that the 2020 contract that the agency used for the historical price comparison was awarded at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that in the two years since that award, costs have risen for the production of paper stock and fuel. Id. at 7. Additionally, the protester states that inflation has risen significantly over the past two years. Id. at 7-8. Therefore, according to the protester, in determining whether Regal’s 2022 bid price was reasonable, the agency was required to account for those market and economic variables when comparing Regal’s 2022 bid price to the 2020 contract price.