B-165999, MAY 16, 1969

B-165999, MAY 16, 1969

TO COLUMBIA VAN LINES MOVING AND STORAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 21, 1969, AND TO SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE, PROTESTING THE REJECTION OF YOUR BID UNDER SCHEDULE III OF INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DABG03-69-B-0011, ISSUED OCTOBER 21, 1968, BY THE PURCHASING DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., HEADQUARTERS, CAMERON STATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, FOR SERVICING DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1969 OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND UNACCOMPANIED BAGGAGE WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS IN THE STATES OF MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA, IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF SUCH PROPERTY.

BIDS WERE OPENED ON DECEMBER 5, 1968, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY BIDDER FILED A PROTEST WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF BIDS SUBMITTED UNDER SCHEDULES I, II AND IV OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS. THE FIVE REPORTED BIDS UNDER SCHEDULE III, WHICH CALLED FOR THE SERVICING OF UNACCOMPANIED BAGGAGE, WERE EVALUATED IN AMOUNTS RANGING FROM $538,106.36 TO $1,069,557.60. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT THE LOWEST BID UNDER SCHEDULE III, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ACME MOVING AND STORAGE COMPANY, AND THE SECOND LOWEST BID, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY YOUR COMPANY, SHOULD BE REJECTED ON THE BASIS THAT NEITHER BIDDER COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE REQUIRED SCHEDULE III SERVICES. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER PROPOSED TO MAKE A SCHEDULE III AWARD TO THE THIRD LOWEST BIDDER, MERCHANTS STORAGE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA. THE TWO LOWEST BIDDERS PROTESTED THE POSSIBLE REJECTION OF THEIR BIDS AND THE FOURTH LOWEST BIDDER, DISTRICT MOVING AND STORAGE, INCORPORATED, PROTESTED THE POSSIBLE REJECTION OF ITS BID, CONTENDING THAT THE BID OF MERCHANTS STORAGE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA WAS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE THE COMPANY STATED THAT IT WOULD NOT CONSIDER "A STANDBY AWARD.'

THE ACME MOVING AND STORAGE COMPANY WITHDREW ITS PROTEST AND BY DECISION, B-165999, FEBRUARY 27, 1969, WE DENIED THE PROTEST OF THE FOURTH LOWEST BIDDER. OUR RECORDS INDICATE THAT ON THE SAME DATE AN AWARD WAS MADE TO THE MERCHANTS STORAGE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, ALTHOUGH THE DECISION OF FEBRUARY 27, 1969, STATED THAT THE PROTEST OF YOUR COMPANY WAS STILL PENDING BEFORE US.

YOUR PROTEST WAS PRESENTED TO OUR OFFICE BY LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 21, 1969, REFERRING TO A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 19, 1969, IN WHICH YOU REQUESTED THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE TO GIVE FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION TO YOUR BID IN THE EVENT THAT THE LOW BID UNDER SCHEDULE III WAS DISQUALIFIED FOR ANY REASON. IT APPEARS THAT YOU OBTAINED CERTAIN INFORMATION SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY 21, 1969, REGARDING THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S JANUARY 24, 1969, DETERMINATION OF NONRESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OF YOUR COMPANY. LETTER DATED MARCH 13, 1969, WITH WHICH YOU SUBMITTED COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTARY MATERIAL, YOU STATED THAT YOUR COMPANY IS PREPARED TO GREATLY ELABORATE, IF NECESSARY, ON YOUR PROTEST CONCERNING THE DATA PRESENTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF HIS ACTION. HOWEVER, YOU SUGGESTED THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER AND THE ATTACHMENTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MIGHT PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO YOUR FIRM'S RESPONSIBILITY WAS BASED ON UNSATISFACTORY, IRRELEVANT, DISCONNECTED AND IMCOMPETENT INFORMATION.

YOU CONTENDED THAT YOUR COMPANY HAS FURNISHED SERVICES RELATED TO THE TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACTS WITH AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMERCIAL SHIPPERS, AND THAT YOUR GROSS REVENUE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH SERVICES DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968 WAS $1,359,000. YOU STATED THAT, UNDER A NONTEMPORARY STORAGE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, YOUR WAREHOUSES CONTAIN APPROXIMATELY 5 MILLION POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS, AND YOUR RECORDS INDICATE THAT THERE WERE 843 INBOUND MOVEMENTS TOTALING 1,838,589 POUNDS, AND 890 OUTBOUND SHIPMENTS TOTALING 1,520,682 POUNDS, DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968. YOU ALSO STATED THAT, AS A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR INTERNATIONAL EXPORT PACKERS, INCORPORATED, YOUR COMPANY PERFORMED SERVICES FOR THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DURING THE PAST TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS, AND THAT YOU WERE RECENTLY AWARDED A CONTRACT (APPARENTLY BY THE PRIME CONTRACTOR), WHICH COULD EXTEND UNTIL THE YEAR 1971. YOU FURTHER STATED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN THIS CASE ERRONEOUSLY CITED INTERNATIONAL EXPORT PACKERS, INCORPORATED, AS A SUBSIDIARY OF YOUR COMPANY.

YOU CONTENDED THAT YOUR COMPANY'S LOW BID HAS NEVER IN THE PAST BEEN REJECTED NOR HAVE YOUR COMMITMENTS BEEN OVERLOOKED OR CONTRACTS TERMINATED FOR ANY REASON. YOU FURTHER CONTENDED THAT, ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS, YOUR COMPANY PERFORMED SERVICES ON A TOTAL OF 3,326 SHIPMENTS DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968, AND IT IS THEREFORE UNFAIR TO BASE A DETERMINATION OF NONRESPONSIBILITY UPON AN APPARENTLY UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE RECORD RELATING TO COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO 34 PERCENT OF 300 SHIPMENTS PROCESSED BY UOUR COMPANY DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968. IN THAT CONNECTION, IT WAS STATED IN A DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF FEBRUARY 24, 1969, IN REGARD TO THE 300 SHIPMENTS, THAT 166 QUALITY CONTROL FORMS WERE RECEIVED BACK FROM PERSONS MOVED, AND THAT AN ANALYSIS OF THOSE COMPLETED FORMS REFLECTED UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, REPRESENTING 34 PERCENT OF THE 300 SHIPMENTS.

YOU CONTENDED THAT NO WEIGHT WAS GIVEN IN THE DETERMINATION OF NONRESPONSIBILITY TO SHIPPERS' SIGNED LETTERS OF SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE AND THAT YOU CAN SAFELY SAY THAT THE LETTERS OF SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OUTNUMBER THE COMPLAINTS BY 10 TO 1; ALSO, THAT, FROM YOUR INVESTIGATION, IT APPEARS THAT MOST OF THE COMPLAINTS INVOLVED UNSATISFACTORY SERVICES UNDER YOUR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NON TEMPORARY STORAGE CONTRACT IN 1966 AND POSSIBLY IN THE FIRST MONTH OF 1967, WHICH RESULTED FROM HAVING TO MOVE YOUR WAREHOUSE DURING THE PEAK SEASON OF 1966. WITH RESPECT TO THREE CITED INSTANCES OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE DURING THE CALENDARD YEAR 1968, YOU CONTENDED THAT, IN THE FIRST CASE, THE GOVERNMENT APPEARED TO BE CONVINCED THAT APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN; AND THAT, IN THE OTHER TWO CASES, THE FAILURE TO RENDER SATISFACTORY SERVICE WAS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND YOUR CONTROL OR TO CONDITIONS OVER WHICH YOU HAD "VERY LITTLE CONTROL.'

YOU ALSO CONTENDED THAT, CONTRARY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING THAT YOU HAD APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE IN YOUR PRESENT PACKING AND CRATING FACILITY, YOUR PRESENT FACILITY HAS 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE WHICH WAS NOT INSPECTED BY THE ORIGINAL PREAWARD SURVEY TEAM AND AT THE TIME OF "RE-INSPECTION" CONTAINED AN ABNORMAL AMOUNT OF SHIPMENTS IN PROCESS DUE TO A MARITIME STRIKE. YOU STATED THAT YOU CAN GUARANTEE AN ADDITIONAL FACILITY OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE COULD BE COMPLETED, REPAIRED AND READY NOT LATER THAN 10 DAYS FROM DATE OF REQUISITION.

IN VIEW OF THE CONTENTIONS MADE IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 13, 1969, WE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY A SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT ON YOUR PROTEST. THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT CONSISTS OF MEMORANDA PREPARED BY THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE, WITH ACCOMPANYING MATERIAL, INCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS INSPECTOR, THE CHIEF, QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, CONCERNING CERTAIN OF YOUR CONTENTIONS.

IN A MEMORANDUM WHICH IS DIRECTED TO THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 13, 1969, IT IS REPORTED BY THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION TO REJECT THE TWO LOWEST BIDS AND TO MAKE AN AWARD TO THE THIRD LOWEST BIDDER UNDER SCHEDULE III OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 21, 1968, WAS BASED ON FACTUAL INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE PREAWARD SURVEY TEAM FINDINGS AND FROM THE FILES MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE. IT IS STATED IN THE MEMORANDUM THAT THE AWARD DECISION WAS NEITHER IRRELEVANT, DISCONNECTED NOR BASED ON INCOMPETENT INFORMATION.

IT IS STATED THAT THE INDICATED GROSS REVENUE OF YOUR COMPANY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968 SUPPORTS THE SURVEY'S EVALUATION THAT YOUR OVERALL WORKLOAD (PRESENT AND POTENTIAL), IS COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT YOUR COMPANY CAN REASONABLY EXPECT TO MANAGE. SERVICES WHICH YOU PERFORMED FOR AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ARE REFERRED TO AS HAVING POSSIBLY BEEN SATISFACTORY AND ITIS STATED THAT A SIMILARITY OF CONTRACTS DOES EXIST. HOWEVER, EXCEPTION IS TAKEN TO THE COMPARISON OF SERVICES RENDERED BY YOUR COMPANY TO OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WITH SERVICES PERFORMED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SINCE NONE OF THE OTHER AGENCIES LISTED IN YOUR LETTER PLACE THE SAME DEGREE OF EMPHASIS ON OVERALL SATISFACTORY SERVICE AS DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AND THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC WHICH THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE TENDERS AND THE NATURE OF ITS MOVEMENT ARE NOT NECESSARILY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.

IT IS REPORTED THAT YOUR COMPANY IS CURRENTLY A LARGE PARTICIPANT IN THE FURNISHING OF THE TYPE OF SERVICE REQUIRED UNDER YOUR NON TEMPORARY STORAGE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SPECIFIC SHORTCOMINGS IN PERFORMANCE OF THAT ASPECT OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM, YOUR COMPANY IS OTHERWISE A SATISFACTORY NON-TEMPORARY STORAGE CONTRACTOR. HOWEVER, IT IS REPORTED THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT VARIANCE OF MORE THAN 500 IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS CITED BY YOUR COMPANY AS HAVING BEEN HANDLED DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968 FOR THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE IN THE NON-TEMPORARY STORAGE CATEGORY.

WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOUR LOW BID HAS NEVER IN THE PAST BEEN REJECTED, THE STATEMENT OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CONTAINS THE INFORMATION THAT HIS OFFICE HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED ANY LOW BID FROM YOUR COMPANY NOR TERMINATED ANY CONTRACTS AWARDED TO YOUR COMPANY.

WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOU PERFORMED SERVICES ON A TOTAL OF 3,326 SHIPMENTS FOR THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968, IT IS REPORTED BY THAT AGENCY THAT THE TERM "SHIPMENTS," USED IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 13, 1969, DIFFERS IN CONTEXT WITH THAT USED IN THE STAFF REVIEW TO REACH THE FACTOR OF A 34 PERCENT UNSATISFACTORY RATE. IT IS INDICATED THAT YOUR 3,326 COMPUTATION INCLUDES NON-TEMPORARY STORAGE HANDLING OF CRATED ITEMS INTO AND OUT OF WAREHOUSE AS SEPARATE "SHIPMENTS.' IT IS ALSO INDICATED THAT YOU COUNTED AS ,SHIPMENTS" CASES WHEREIN YOU PERFORMED ORIGIN SERVICES FOR OTHER DOMESTIC OR OVERSEAS CARRIERS OR WHEN ONLY PACKING AND CRATING SERVICES WERE PERFORMED. IT IS REPORTED THAT, FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES, THE TERM "SHIPMENT" WAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE TO THE MOVEMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL SERVICE MEMBER'S PERSONAL PROPERTY CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, AND THAT AN INDIVIDUAL SERVICE MEMBER NORMALLY HAS SEVERAL "SUB-SHIPMENTS" OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION. THE STAFF REVIEW AND THE PREAWARD SURVEY TEAM REPORTEDLY CONSIDERED ONLY LINE HAUL CASES WHICH ACTUALLY TOTALED 459 SHIPMENTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1968 AND IT IS STATED THAT AN UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE RATE OF 42 PERCENT WAS FOUND IN ONE OR MORE CATEGORIES OF THE SERVICE REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE 459 SHIPMENTS. THAT FINDING IS SUPPORTED BY A SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FACT SHEET ON WHICH A TOTAL OF 206 MAJOR VIOLATIONS ARE INDICATED IN CONNECTION WITH MORE THAN 400 CASES OF REPORTED LOST, DAMAGED, OR MISSING ITEMS, RESULTING IN SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS OR TRACING ACTIONS.

WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT NO WEIGHT WAS GIVEN IN THE DETERMINATION OF NONRESPONSIBILITY TO SHIPPERS' SIGNED LETTERS OF SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, IT IS INDICATED BY THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE THAT THOSE LETTERS WERE PREPARED AT TIMES OF PICK-UP AND DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE DEGREE OF OVERALL SERVICE RENDERED ON MOVEMENTS FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION, WHICH IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS FOR AND IS SUBSEQUENTLY BILLED. IT IS STATED THAT STANDARD FORM MTMTS-2 IS FURNISHED TO AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION FOR MOVEMENT, AND THAT THE FORM PROVIDES FOR A CHRONOLOGICAL REPORT ON THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED. THE FORM REPORTEDLY COVERS THE TRANSACTION FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION, PROVIDES FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE OVERALL SERVICE AND IS COMPLETED AFTER THE MOVE IS TERMINATED. IT IS REFERRED TO AS THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT MAINTAINED IN THE CARRIER'S FILE AND IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY CONCERNED.

THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE STATES THAT IN DUE RECOGNITION OF THE EFFORTS MADE BY YOUR COMPANY TO RECTIFY SHORTCOMINGS IN SERVICES PERFORMED PRIOR TO AND DURING 1966 AND 1967, THE SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FACT SHEET CONTAINS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE IN 1968 ONLY; AND THIS IS IN ESSENCE THE SAME INFORMATION USED IN THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PREAWARD SURVEY TEAM AND THE MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON REVIEW STAFF CONCERNING YOUR COMPANY'S QUALIFICATION FOR PERFORMANCE. WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR EXISTING FACILITY, IT IS REPORTED THAT YOUR STATEMENTS TEND TO CONFIRM THE BELIEF OF THE PREAWARD SURVEY TEAM AND THE APPOINTED OFFICER WHO CONDUCTED THE STAFF REVIEW THAT THE AVAILABLE FACILITIES OF YOUR COMPANY WOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE REQUIRED SCHEDULE III SERVICES. IT IS AGREED THAT YOUR PRESENT FACILITY CONTAINS 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE BUT IT IS STATED THAT DURING REVIEW 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE IN THAT FACILITY CONTAINED NON-TEMPORARY STORAGE CRATES IN A PERMANENT USE STATUS, LEAVING THE 5,000 SQUARE-FOOT WING AVAILABLE TO HANDLE A CONTRACT.

WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR CONTENTIONS IN REGARD TO THE THREE CITED CASES OF UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE, THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE STATES THAT, IN THE FIRST CASE, COLONEL MANSFIELD'S LETTER OF OFFICIAL COMPLAINT IS A MATTER OF RECORD ON FILE WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND IS PART OF THE UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE FILE MAINTAINED FOR YOUR COMPANY IN THE QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION OF THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE. THE STATEMENT PROVIDED BY THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS INSPECTOR DOES NOT REFER TO YOUR STATEMENT OF PERSONALITY CONFLICT BUT INCLUDES THE INFORMATION THAT ON JULY 31, 1968, THE NECESSITY FOR USING WIRE AND SEALS ON FOUR CONEX CONTAINERS WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF YOUR WAREHOUSE FOREMAN, AND THAT THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS INSPECTOR "WENT AS FAR AS TO SHOW MR. BRADY THE REGULATION WHERE THIS WAS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, BUT, HE COMPLETELY IGNORED ME AND SAID, WRITE UP THE VIOLATION.' IN REGARD TO THE TWO OTHER CITED CASES, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH LETTERS OF SUSPENSIONS WERE ISSUED, THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE INDICATES THAT, IN ITS OPINION, THE LETTERS OF SUSPENSION WERE PROPERLY ISSUED, AND STATES THAT THE BASIC REASON FOR THE FIRST SUSPENSION WAS THE REPEATED VIOLATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH TENDERS OF SERVICE AS OUTLINED IN SIX SPECIFIC LETTERS OF WARNING PRECEDING THE SUSPENSION.

THE MEMORANDUM DOES NOT REFER SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ERRONEOUSLY CITED INTERNATIONAL EXPORT PACKERS, INCORPORATED, AS A SUBSIDIARY OF YOUR COMPANY. IT APPEARS THAT A MISTAKE IN THE MATTER WAS MADE, HOWEVER, SINCE THE MEMORANDUM REFERS TO YOUR COMPANY ONLY AS THE "ORIGIN SERVICES AGENT" FOR INTERNATIONAL EXPORT PACKERS, INCORPORATED, ON RECORD AT THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE, BUT STATES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MUST HOLD THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR/CARRIER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETE SERVICE REQUIRED UNDER A CONTRACT.

IT IS STATED AT PAGE 2 OF YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 13, 1969, THAT, ACCORDING TO INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE AMERICAN MOVERS CONFERENCE, A RECENT SURVEY BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SHOWS THAT LETTERS OF COMPLAINT WERE RECEIVED ON 38 PERCENT OF SHIPMENTS HANDLED BY THE MOVING INDUSTRY. THE GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICER OF THE AMERICAN MOVERS CONFERENCE REPORTEDLY INDICATED THAT THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN 1961, THAT CURRENTLY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SENDS COPIES OF ALL COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE AMERICAN MOVERS CONFERENCE AND THAT CURRENT COMPLAINTS INVOLVE ABOUT 2 PERCENT OF SHIPMENTS HANDLED.

IN A SEPARATE MEMORANDUM REGARDING YOUR PROTEST, THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE REPORTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS REVIEWED SINCE SEPTEMBER 1966 ALL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE MOVEMENT AND STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY BECAUSE SERVICES PREVIOUSLY RENDERED IN THE MOVEMENT OF SUCH PROPERTY HAD DETERIORATED TO AN UNACCEPTABLE DEGREE. THE MEMORANDUM STATES IN PART THAT UNACCOMPANIED BAGGAGE IS A KEY ELEMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT MUST ARRIVE AT DESTINATION PRIOR TO, OR NOT LATER THAN FIVE DAYS SUBSEQUENT TO, THE MEMBER, AND THAT IN THE PAST YEAR MORE EMPHASIS HAS BEEN PLACED ON MEETING THIS STANDARD OF SERVICE THAN ON ANY OTHER PHASE OF THE PROGRAM. IN ADDITION, THE MEMORANDUM STATES THAT PERSONNEL TO BE EMPLOYED IN PROCESSING BAGGAGE MUST BE MORE SPECIALIZED AND TECHNICALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND COMPETENT; THAT PERSONAL BAGGAGE OFTEN CONTAINS INTRICATE ARTICLES OF EXTRAORDINARY VALUE; THAT, IN RECOMMENDING A COMPANY FOR CONTRACT SERVICES OF THIS CATEGORY, AN INVESTIGATION AND A DETAILED REVIEW OF POTENTIAL BIDDERS' PREPLANNING TO COPE WITH THE SPECIALIZED PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT HAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED; AND THAT YOUR COMPANY DID NOT HAVE SUCH A PLAN.

OUR OFFICE HAS CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THE POSITION THAT A PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR'S ABILITY TO PERFORM A CONTRACT INVOLVES A FORECAST WHICH MUST OF NECESSITY BE A MATTER OF JUDGMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ACCORDED FINALITY ABSENT A SHOWING OF BAD FAITH OR LACK OF A REASONABLE BASIS THEREFOR. SEE 43 COMP. GEN. 228. IN REGARD TO DETERMINING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BIDDERS ON PROPOSED CONTRACTS WITH THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS, SECTION 1-902, ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR), STATES IN PART THAT A RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR IS ONE WHICH MEETS THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN ASPR 1-903.1 AND 1-903.2. THOSE PRESCRIBED STANDARDS INCLUDE AN APPARENT ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED OR PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE AND THE POSSESSION OF THE NECESSARY FACILITIES, OR THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN THEM WITHIN SUFFICIENT TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT; AND THE POSSESSION BY THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR OF A SATISFACTORY RECORD OF PERFORMANCE. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT A DELAY IN PERFORMING A PREVIOUS CONTRACT, OR DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED BY THE AGENCY CONCERNED IN ADMINISTERING A PREVIOUS CONTRACT, WOULD REQUIRE A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR HAS AN UNSATISFACTORY RECORD OF PERFORMANCE. HOWEVER, IN PARAGRAPH ASPR 1-903.1 (III), IT IS PROVIDED THAT A PAST UNSATISFACTORY RECORD OF PERFORMANCE DUE TO A FAILURE TO APPLY NECESSARY TENACITY OR PERSEVERANCE TO DO AN ACCEPTABLE JOB "SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A FINDING OF NONRESPONSIBILITY AND IN THE CASE OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS, SHALL NOT REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.'

THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION HAS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO CERTIFY THE COMPETENCY OF ANY SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN AS TO CAPACITY AND CREDIT. SUCH CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY ARE CONCLUSIVE AS TO CAPACITY AND CREDIT ON THE PROCURING AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, THE MATTER NEED NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FOR POSSIBLE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY WHEN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINES EITHER THAT A CONTRACT AWARD MUST BE MADE WITHOUT DELAY OR THAT THE SMALL BUSINESS BIDDER OR OFFEROR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REASONS OTHER THAN CAPACITY OR CREDIT; AND AN UNSATISFACTORY RECORD OF PERFORMANCE NOT DUE SOLELY TO INADEQUATE CAPACITY OR CREDIT IS A SUFFICIENT REASON TO JUSTIFY REJECTION OF THE BID OF A SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN WITHOUT REFERRING THE CASE TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. SEE ASPR 1-705.4 (C) (V).

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S JANUARY 24, 1969, DETERMINATION OF NONRESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OF YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT QUESTION THE ADEQUACY OF YOUR EXISTING OR ADDITIONALLY PROPOSED FACILITIES BUT STATES THAT IT IS HIS FINDING THAT YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE A SATISFACTORY RECORD OF PERFORMANCE AND THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, UNSATISFACTORY SERVICES RENDERED BY YOUR COMPANY DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968 WERE NOT BEYOND ITS CONTROL AND "WERE DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE BIDDER TO APPLY THE NECESSARY PERSEVERANCE TO DO AN ACCEPTABLE JOB.' THE DETERMINATION OF NON RESPONSIBILITY CONCLUDES WITH THE STATEMENT THAT,"IT IS THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, BASED UPON THE ABOVE, THAT COLUMBIA VAN LINES MOVING AND STORAGE COMPANY IS NON-RESPONSIBLE, NOT RELATED TO CAPACITY.' THE WORDS "NOT RELATED TO CAPACITY" APPARENTLY WERE ADDED IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAD CERTIFIED IN YOUR BID THAT YOU WERE A SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN.

IN VIEW OF THE SMALL BUSINESS FEATURE OF THE CASE, THE PRIMARY QUESTION FOR US TO CONSIDER IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR PROTEST IS WHETHER THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING THAT YOUR PAST RECORD OF PERFORMANCE WAS UNSATISFACTORY AND THAT SUCH UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE RECORD WAS DUE TO YOUR FAILURE TO APPLY NECESSARY PERSEVERANCE TO DO AN ACCEPTABLE JOB. AS ABOVE INDICATED, THERE IS A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF REPORTED UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE RENDERED BY YOUR COMPANY IN HANDLING SHIPMENTS FOR THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968. IN COMPARISON, THE PREAWARD SURVEY BOARD DETERMINED THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER UNDER SCHEDULE III, MERCHANTS STORAGE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE IN 1968, WITH NO RECORD OF CASES OF UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL. FURTHERMORE, THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE RECORD OF THE FOURTH LOWEST BIDDER UNDER SCHEDULE III, DISTRICT MOVING AND STORAGE, INCORPORATED, REFLECTED AN UNSATISFACTORY CASE RATE OF ONLY ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT WITH RESPECT TO THE HANDLING OF APPROXIMATELY 11,000 SHIPMENTS.

YOU STATE THAT THE SCIENCE OF MOVING IS NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM BUT THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO MATCH YOUR RECORD TO THAT OF ANY COMPANY OF SIMILAR SIZE AND CONCEPT. HOWEVER, THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE REPORTED UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE RENDERED BY YOUR COMPANY DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1968 REQUIRES A DETERMINATION THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S UNFAVORABLE DETERMINATION IS REASONABLE.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD PRESENTLY BEFORE US, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE, AND IS, HEREBY DENIED.