GAO Opinions

Matter of: Al Long Ford
File: B-297807
Date: April 12, 2006

DIGEST
Where, after discussions had concluded, agency identified concerns pertaining to the achievability of protester’s proposed delivery schedule that should have been apparent to the agency prior to discussions, discussions should have been reopened since proposed delivery schedule was an area that had to be addressed in order for the protester to be in line for award.

DECISION
Al Long Ford (ALF) protests the rejection of its offer and the award of a contract to American Equipment Company, Inc. (AMECO) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-05-R-D117, issued by the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for light utility trucks and accompanying spare parts and manuals. The protester argues that its proposal represented a better value to the government than AMECO’s because it offered a substantially shorter delivery schedule.

We sustain the protest.

APPROPRIATION OPINION

Good example of what happens when you spend money improperly.

B-303920, Clarence Maddox - Relief of Liability for Improper Payments for Bottled Water, March 21, 2006

We deny relief for a disbursing/certifying officer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida who certified improper payments to purchase bottled water for court employees in the absence of any documentation that the available drinking water posed a health risk. While the disbursing/certifying officer claims that he was unaware that the bottled water being purchased was for employees (bottled water for jurors is an allowable expense), and that he certified the payments in good faith, we do not agree. To find "good faith" as used in the relief statute requires that there be no doubt regarding, nor reason to doubt, the propriety of the payments. Since the record states that the payments for employee bottled water came from a different account than that for juror bottled water, and vouchers for the improper purchases indicate that each purchase was funded by that different, non-juror, account, we find that reasonable examination of the vouchers should have identified the water being purchased as other than for jurors. We therefore cannot conclude that he had no reason to doubt the propriety of the payments.