BNUMBER:  B-277268; B-277268.2 
DATE:  September 24, 1997
TITLE: Court Copies & Images, Inc., B-277268; B-277268.2, September
24, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Court Copies & Images, Inc.

File:     B-277268; B-277268.2

Date:September 24, 1997

John B. McDaniel, Esq., and O. Kevin Vincent, Esq., Baker & Botts, 
LLP, for the protester.
Roberta M. Echard, Esq., Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, for 
the agency.
Scott Riback, Esq., and John Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly found protester's quotations 
technically unacceptable based on its performance of predecessor 
contract for requirements being solicited is denied where record 
supports agency's evaluation finding of significant problems with 
protester's performance.

DECISION

Court Copies & Images, Inc. (CCI) protests the actions of the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) in 
eliminating its quotations from further consideration under requests 
for quotations (RFQ) for copying services at four locations of the 
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of 
California.[1]  CCI maintains that the agency unreasonably found its 
quotations technically unacceptable based on its prior performance of 
copier services at several Bankruptcy Court locations.  

We deny the protest.
      
The solicitations contemplated the award of license agreements to the 
firms selected based on price and experience/prior performance.  This 
latter factor was comprised of four considerations:  experience in 
providing copying and related services equivalent to the estimated 
number of copies being solicited; courtesy and professionalism of the 
vendor in responding to the public; the quality of the copies and 
timeliness in providing them; and overall performance in providing 
similar services.  Quotations were to include three references for 
which the firm had performed similar services, and a list of courts 
for which they had performed such services.  The RFQs explained that 
the agency would evaluate materials submitted with the quotations, as 
well as information obtained by the agency through reference checks.  
On the basis of its review, the agency assigned quotations a rating of 
either acceptable or unacceptable for the experience/prior performance 
factor.
              
CCI quoted the lowest price for all four locations, but the AOUSC 
rejected CCI's quotations as technically unacceptable based primarily 
on the firm's prior performance of the requirements at three of the 
four locations being solicited.  According to the agency, CCI's 
performance under the predecessor license agreements had been 
unacceptable because of CCI's failure to offer all services required 
in a manner that reflected favorably upon the reputation of the 
courts, and because of the firm's continued violation of the terms of 
the license agreements in numerous instances, for example, by sending 
copies by facsimile and imposing minimum order amounts for 
transactions where the purchaser wanted to pay using a credit card or 
check.  Additionally, the agency found two of CCI's three non-court 
references of only marginal relevance because the two concerns--both 
law firms--indicated that their primary involvement had been with 
CCI's affiliated concern, BDR, which the law firms used for file 
retrieval rather than copying services.  
              
CCI takes issue with the agency's evaluation of its prior performance.  
While CCI concedes that it had several difficulties at the outset of 
contract performance, it maintains that it rapidly resolved all 
matters brought to its attention by the courts, and that its more 
recent performance has been exemplary.  CCI therefore contends that 
the agency's determination that its prior performance was technically 
unacceptable was unreasonable because it failed to consider that CCI's 
performance improved shortly after the startup of the contract.
              
When evaluating past performance, agencies properly may take into 
consideration a firm's overall performance, and not just its most 
recent activities, and properly may downgrade a firm even where, 
compared to its earlier performance, its more recent performance is 
improved.  See GEC Marconi Elec. Sys. Corp., B-276186; B-276186.2, May 
21, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  23 at 12-13.  Our Office will review a past 
performance evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and 
consistent with the evaluation criteria.  Id.[2]
                                
The evaluation here was reasonable; the record supports the agency's 
finding of  inadequate performance by CCI throughout its prior 
contracts, including its more recent performance.  Of particular 
concern to the agency were CCI's activities that tended to reflect 
negatively on the courts, as well as those activities that raised some 
potential for at least the appearance of impropriety on the part of 
CCI.

Among other problems, there were several concerns relating to CCI's 
apparent misrepresentations with respect to the terms of its license 
agreements.  During a March 1995 audit of CCI's Los Angeles operation 
(almost 6 months after CCI commenced performance), the agency found 
that CCI's price brochures included statements that either were not 
true or misrepresented the position of the court regarding the firm's 
policies.  In this regard, CCI's price brochure stated that customers 
obtaining services by mail were required to include a self-addressed, 
stamped envelope in order for CCI to process the request and that this 
requirement was "[d]ue to the stipulations of our contract."  In fact, 
there was no such stipulation in CCI's license agreement, and the 
agency found that this amounted to a misrepresentation of the contract 
to the public.  Despite the agency's bringing this concern to CCI's 
attention, in May 1995 CCI submitted brochures for agency approval 
that continued to include the representation concerning the 
requirement that mail-in customers include a self-addressed, stamped 
envelope with their orders due to the "stipulations" of CCI's 
contract.  The same audit revealed that CCI's price brochure 
represented that its charges and services "were deemed by the U.S. 
Bankruptcy Court to be the most beneficial to the public."  The agency 
deemed this representation inconsistent with the requirement of CCI's 
license that the vendor refrain from referring to the license in 
commercial literature in a manner that stated or implied that the 
services offered were endorsed or preferred by the government.  The 
agency also found that CCI was imposing minimum charges for credit 
card and check payments, also in violation of CCI's license agreement.
              
The record shows that similar problems existed at the other locations 
where CCI had been awarded a license.  For example, an April 1995 
audit of the firm's operations at the San Bernadino location found 
that CCI was not processing mail-in orders where the order did not 
include a self-addressed, stamped envelope, and that CCI would not 
telephone mail-in customers where there was a problem with their order 
unless the customer had a toll-free number or would accept CCI's 
collect call.  During this audit, the agency found a box containing a 
large quantity of unprocessed mail-in requests that was labeled 
"toes-up file," and found as well that, in some instances, CCI would 
cash the check submitted by the mail-in customer but not mail out the 
order because of a lack of a self-addressed, stamped envelope.  

In an audit of CCI's Santa Barbara operation in April 1995, the agency 
found that CCI would provide documents by facsimile, but only to its 
debit account holders.  The agency was concerned with this practice, 
both because CCI's license agreement did not permit the firm to offer 
facsimile services, and because this practice suggested that CCI was 
providing preferential service to customers that maintained an account 
with CCI.  The audit report concluded with the observation:

       It is believed that having a debit account with CCI is being 
       used as a requirement to obtain professional service from CCI, 
       whereas customers that do not have a debit account receive 
       lesser service.

The agency again audited CCI's operations in the spring of 1996 and 
found continuing problems with the firm's performance, notwithstanding 
the agency's  having brought the matters to CCI's attention on 
numerous occasions.  For example, during the contract period, CCI's 
license agreement had been amended to grant the firm authority, not 
only to copy files, but also to retrieve files from the courts' 
central file rooms; this service was to be available to all customers.  
In a May 1996 audit of CCI's Los Angeles operation, the agency 
discovered that CCI would provide file retrieval services only to 
those customers having a debit account with CCI.[3]  The firm's 
telephone message at the Los Angeles location also failed to state 
affirmatively that file retrieval services were available and 
continued to state that there were minimum charges for payments by 
credit card or check and that CCI would not return telephone inquiries 
where the customer did not have a toll-free number or did not accept 
collect calls.  Similarly, CCI's price list at the Santa Barbara 
location continued to represent that CCI would furnish copies by 
facsimile, but only where the customer maintained a debit account with 
CCI.  Additionally, an audit of CCI's San Bernadino operation 
reflected the firm's continued practice of providing copies by 
facsimile, despite the fact that the firm did not have authority to do 
so; the audit concluded that the practice "is a flagrant violation of 
the license and [a June 1995 letter that noted the fact that this 
service was not authorized]."
       
In addition to these continuing problems, the record contains numerous 
letters of complaint from customers to the courts relating to an 
apparently improper relationship between CCI and its affiliate BDR.  
(BDR is a concern that provides the same type of file retrieval 
service offered by other customers of the copy service.)  The letters 
relate several customer concerns, including CCI's alleged preferential 
processing of BDR requests, and use of the copyroom facilities by BDR 
employees to conduct BDR business.

We conclude that the record contains ample evidence showing that the 
agency had a reasonable basis for finding CCI technically unacceptable 
based on its past performance. 

CCI contends that the agency improperly discounted the favorable 
references it received from the three private concerns identified in 
its quotation.  According to the protester, the agency mistakenly 
determined that two of these favorable references were for file 
retrieval rather than copier services when, in fact, these references 
had used the copier services of CCI.  In support of its position, CCI 
has furnished a letter from one of the references in which the 
cognizant individual clarifies his position, stating that his firm 
uses CCI for both file retrieval and copier service.  In a related 
argument, CCI maintains that the agency contacted one of the eventual 
awardees after quotations were submitted to obtain an additional 
reference because the firm had included only two instead of the 
required three references.  CCI contends that the agency should have 
solicited additional references from it when the agency found that two 
of its references were not relevant.  

Even given the agency's apparent error in finding that one of CCI's 
references was referring to BDR rather than CCI, the agency 
nonetheless reasonably discounted CCI's private references as less 
relevant than its court references in reaching its determination as to 
the acceptability of CCI's quotations.  In this respect, agencies 
properly may consider as more relevant--and properly may give more 
weight to--prior experience references for the precise services being 
solicited them to references involving services that are merely 
similar in nature.  Fidelity Techs. Corp., B-258944, Feb. 22, 1995, 
95-1 CPD  para.  112 at 2-3.  Here, the RFQs indicated that the agency would 
give consideration to references that were for copier services which 
were equivalent in terms of the number of copies called for.  CCI does 
not contend, and the record does not show, that the two references 
discounted by the agency were for services similar in magnitude to 
those called for under the solicitations; in fact, both references 
were for private law firms requiring copier services at a level far 
below the quantity estimates included in the solicitations.  
Additionally, the record shows only that the agency gave less weight 
to the private references, but did not ignore them completely.  In 
this respect, the memorandum that discusses the agency's findings 
states:

       In balancing these references, consideration was given to the 
       fact that the solicitation is specifically for on-site copy 
       centers, and the court references reflect CCI's on-site copy 
       centers experience as the incumbent in [three locations].

In light of the terms of the solicitations, as well as the highly 
relevant nature of CCI's court references, we have no basis for 
objecting to the agency's discounting CCI's private references in 
evaluating the firm's prior performance.

We also have no basis for finding the solicitation of an additional 
reference from one of the awardees was inherently unfair to CCI.  As 
noted, the agency did not rely heavily on CCI's private references in 
reaching its conclusions about the firm's prior performance.  Thus, to 
the extent that CCI now contends that it should have been given an 
opportunity to substitute one of its private references, there is no 
basis in the record for concluding that such a substitution would have 
had any significant effect on the agency's evaluation of CCI's prior 
performance.

CCI also maintains that the agency engaged in disparate treatment of 
the vendors when evaluating the prior performance of one of the other 
awardees.  CCI contends that the agency did not consider one of the 
four references included in the awardee's submissions when it 
performed its technical evaluation.  According to CCI, this reference 
is especially probative because it shows that the awardee was not 
performing satisfactorily at the San Fernando Valley location of the 
Court.  CCI concludes that the agency's actions show that it was 
applying a different standard of scrutiny when evaluating CCI as 
compared to the other vendor.  

In reviewing allegations of disparate treatment, we examine the record 
to ensure that the agency's evaluation was reasonable, consistent with 
the terms of the solicitation, and fairly reflected the relative 
merits of the competing submissions.  See PW Constr., Inc., B-272248; 
B-272248.2, Sept. 13, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  130 at 3-4.  On the basis of 
the record before us, we have no basis for finding that the AOUSC 
treated the vendors in a disparate manner when evaluating their prior 
performance.

The record shows that the reference that the agency did not evaluate 
relates to a license agreement awarded to that firm in July 1996.  The 
record includes no information showing concerns on the part of the 
agency with respect to the firm's performance under that license.  
Rather, it shows that shortly after award of the license, there 
developed a disagreement between the awardee and CCI's affiliate BDR 
regarding the processing of BDR's work at the location in question; 
CCI's affiliate submitted several complaints to the agency regarding 
the matter, and the record shows that the parties were apparently able 
to reach agreement about how the difficulties were to be addressed.  
In any case, the record shows that the awardee's prior performance was 
found technically acceptable based primarily on the firm's 
satisfactory performance of copy service requirements at several other 
courts both within the central district of California as well as in 
New York and Ohio, where the firm processed much larger quantities of 
work than contemplated under the solicitations here.  CCI does not 
allege that the awardee's performance under those contracts was 
unsatisfactory--or that the agency's evaluation of those references 
was disparately favorable compared to its evaluation of CCI's 
references--and we have no other basis for finding the evaluation 
improper.

The protest is denied.[4]

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The RFQs were for services at the United States Bankruptcy Courts 
located at Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and San Bernadino, 
California; the four RFQs are unnumbered and identical.

2. Because AOUSC is part of the judicial branch, it is not subject to 
the procurement statutes and regulations governing executive branch 
procurements.  Nonetheless, we review AOUSC procurements to ensure 
that the agency's actions are reasonable.  Superior Reporting Servs., 
Inc., B-230585, June 16, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  576 at 3.  

3. The agency discovered this performance problem by sending auditors 
to the
copyroom to request files known to be in the central file room.  The 
auditors were denied the file retrieval service and told to obtain the 
files themselves for CCI to perform the copying.  The record further 
shows that the practice persisted even after the matter was brought to 
the attention of CCI.  

4. In a separate protest, CCI challenged the actions of the agency in 
issuing several interim purchase orders for its requirements during 
the pendency of the protest.  After CCI filed this second protest, the 
agency terminated the purchase orders and made other arrangements to 
obtain its interim requirements from the Department of Treasury; in 
response to that action, CCI requested that it be reimbursed the costs 
of filing and pursuing the second protest.  We decline to grant CCI's 
request.  The record shows that the purchase orders were only used for 
approximately 1 week, and they were terminated 1 day after CCI filed 
its protest regarding the issue.  Since the agency acted within 1 day 
of being made aware of CCI's allegations, there is no basis for 
finding CCI entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing this protest.  
Southeast Technical Servs.--Entitlement to Costs, B-272374.2, Mar. 11, 
1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  107 (corrective action within 6 days of when issue 
became framed constituted prompt corrective action, and protester not 
entitled to costs of filing and pursuing protest).