6:37 AM -- Federal Times.Com is doing a poll on how short staffed people believe they are in their office. Results should be interesting especially when you think in terms of A-76.

GAO has been busy:

In Beautify Professional Services, the GAO sustained a protest against the award of custodial services at the Air Force Academy. An interesting case because this protest was the result of reworking the contract after an earlier protest caused the agency to take corrective action. Past performance in the first go around was not very significant. The second time it was but the source selection official's trade off decision did not do a proper job of reflecting the benefits of awardees better past performance versus protestor's lower price. "On this record, we conclude that the source selection authority’s revised tradeoff decision was materially flawed because she inexplicably gave no consideration to Beautify’s low price in relation to Southway’s higher past performance rating (which was only one rating category higher than Beautify’s rating) and, as a result, she failed to document why it was worth paying a 25-percent price premium to Southway."

In CAMS, Inc., a protest was sustained because the requirements set forth in the solicitation were not the same as what was evaluated in making the award -- no short cuts allowed. "As indicated above, Flinchbaugh’s quotation specified a facility other than the actual manufacturing facility as the location for inspection and acceptance of the items it would furnish under the contract. However, section B of the solicitation expressly required final acceptance and inspection of the material to be done at the actual manufacturing facility. Thus, Flinchbaugh’s quotation did not meet this material term of the RFQ relating to inspection and acceptance and cannot form the basis for issuance of an order."

In Roy Anderson Corporation, the GAO denied a protest where, in an IFB, the contracting officer allowed the awardee to make an upward correction of its bid. A good discussion of the evidence required and the standard to be allowed in a post award mistake in bid case. "An agency may permit correction of a bid where clear and convincing evidence establishes both the existence of a mistake and the bid actually intended. Federal Acquisition Regulation § 14.407-3(a). For upward correction of a low bid, workpapers, including records of computer-generated software spreadsheets, may constitute clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no contravening evidence. Alpha Constr. & Eng’g, Inc., B-261493, Oct. 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD ¶ 166 at 3; McInnis Bros. Constr., Inc., B-251138, Mar. 1, 1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 186 at 5. In addition, where the mistake has a calculable effect on the bid price and that effect can be determined by a formula evident from the bidder’s workpapers, the overall intended bid may be ascertained by taking into account the effects of the error on other bid calculations based on the mistaken entry. Continental Heller Corp., B-230559, June 14, 1988, 88-1 CPD ¶ 571 at 3. Moreover, correction may be allowed, even where the intended bid price cannot be determined exactly, provided there is clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the intended bid would fall within a narrow range of uncertainty and would remain low after correction. McInnis Bros. Constr., Inc., supra. Our Office treats the question of whether the evidence of the intended bid meets the clear and convincing standard as a question of fact, and we will not question an agency’s decision in this regard unless it lacks a reasonable basis. Id. "

In Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, GAO sustained a protest involving procurement integrity and business ethics (Ma Bell is flipping in her grave). What is most interesting about this case is that although the GAO does not usually consider a case involving the contracting officer'sresponsibilityresponsibilty determination, here they did and reversed it. "Contracts may only be awarded to responsible prospective contractors. FAR § 9.103(a). In making the responsibility determination, the contracting officer must determine, among other things, that the contractor has 'a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.' FAR § 9.104-1(d). 'In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of nonresponsibility.' FAR § 9.103(b). Although the contracting officer is not required to explain the basis for his or her responsibility determination, '[d]ocuments and reports supporting a determination of responsibility or nonresponsibility . . . must be included in the contract file.' FAR § 9.105-2(b)."

Finally, in Weeks Marine, Inc., GAO denied a bid protest involving the acceptance of a late bid which became the low bid. The opinion is worth reading since GAO sets forth their analysis of when a late bid is not really late even though technically it is late. hmmmmm.

That's enough for now.