BNUMBER:  B-278698; B-278698.3 
DATE:  March 4, 1998
TITLE: Pacific Photocopy and Research Services, B-278698; B-
278698.3, March 4, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Pacific Photocopy and Research Services

File:     B-278698; B-278698.3

Date:March 4, 1998

Bernard Dane Stein, Esq., for the protester.
Harry D. Lewis, Esq., for Judicial Research and Retrieval Services, 
Inc., the intervenor.
Roberta M. Echard, Esq., Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably determined that the prior experience and past 
performance of the awardee of two license agreements for photocopying 
services were acceptable, and, consistent with the solicitations' 
evaluation criteria, made award based on the awardees' low prices.

DECISION

Pacific Photocopy and Research Services protests the award of two 
license agreements to Judicial Research and Retrieval Services, Inc., 
under requests for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Administrative 
Office of the United States Courts for off-site copy centers.

We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part.

The two RFQs provided for the award of 2-year, revocable, 
non-exclusive license agreements for providing off-site copy services 
to the public in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida.  The 
RFQs required, among other things, that vendors have certain specified 
equipment, and set forth estimated quantities of services to be 
performed during each year of the agreements.  The RFQs stated that 
the "license agreement[s] will be awarded to the responsible vendor 
who offers the lowest price and is deemed acceptable in the areas of 
experience and prior performance."  To facilitate this evaluation, the 
RFQs required that each vendor "provide three references for whom the 
vendor has provided similar services," and "a list of any courts for 
which they are, or previously have, performed similar photocopying and 
related services."[1]

The agency received quotes from two firms in response to the West Palm 
Beach RFQ, and quotes from three firms in response to the Fort 
Lauderdale RFQ.  Judicial Research submitted the lowest quotes for 
both locations.  The agency contacted the references provided by the 
vendors, and based upon their responses, determined that each of the 
quotes was acceptable.  On October 6, 1997, the agency awarded the 
license agreements to Judicial Research as the firm submitting the 
lowest acceptable quotes. 

Pacific Photocopy, the incumbent contractor, protested the awards to 
the agency by letter dated October 10.  This protest was denied by the 
agency on November 12 (received by Pacific Photocopy on November 13).  
On November 24, Pacific Photocopy timely filed its protest against the 
awards with our Office.  

Pacific Photocopy argues, consistent with its agency-level protest, 
that Judicial Research's quotes should have been rejected by the 
agency as unacceptable because that firm lacks an acceptable level of 
prior experience.  The protester argues that "[i]t is clear from the 
responses which [the agency] got to its inquiries . . . that those 
interviewed and the references which were obtained did not or could 
not differentiate [Judicial Research], the bidder, from its 
[principal]."  The protester contends that the experience of Judicial 
Research's principal, or president, should not have been considered by 
the agency because the president's experience is solely the result of 
his past employment by Pacific Photocopy. 

The evaluation of competing quotations is primarily a matter within 
the discretion of the contracting agency, which we will examine solely 
to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation 
criteria.  MAC's Gen. Contractor, B-276755, July 24, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  
29 at 3.  

The record here provides no support for the protester's assertion that 
Judicial Research's references did not or could not differentiate 
between Judicial Research and its principal, and thus no support for 
the protester's contention that the agency's evaluation was 
unreasonable.  The three references provided by Judicial Research in 
its quote were contacted by the agency.  The record of the reference 
checks, which consists of three completed "Question Sheet for 
Reference Checks," shows that the agency was seeking comments as to 
the performance of Judicial Research as a vendor.  According to the 
question sheets, each reference confirmed Judicial Research's 
experience in providing similar services and the reference's 
satisfaction with Judicial Research's performance.  Contrary to the 
protester's assertion, there is no indication whatsoever in the record 
that the three references contacted by the agency confirmed anything 
other than the references' experience with Judicial Research.[2]  
Thus, we find no basis to question the agency's determination that 
Judicial Research's prior experience and past performance were 
acceptable. 

Pacific Photocopy also argues that the RFQs improperly considered the 
cost of courier services in the price evaluation.  This protest, filed 
after the award of the license agreements to Judicial Research, is 
untimely because it challenges an alleged impropriety in the 
solicitation that should have been protested before the initial 
closing time for submission of quotes.  Our Bid Protest Regulations 
specifically require that a protest based upon alleged improprieties 
in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for 
receipt of initial proposals must be filed before that time.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(1) (1997); Engelhard Corp., B-237824, Mar. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  
324 at 7.

Pacific Photocopy argues, for the first time in its protest to our 
Office, that Judicial Research did not meet the equipment requirements 
set forth in the RFQ, which Pacific Photocopy contends are definitive 
responsibility criteria.  Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict 
rules for the timely submission of protests.  Under these rules, a 
protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation 
must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, 
or should have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier.  
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2).  Our Regulations also provide that a matter 
initially protested to the agency will be considered if the initial 
protest to the agency was filed within the time limits for filing a 
protest with our Office, unless the contracting agency imposes a more 
stringent time for filing, in which case the agency's time for filing 
will control.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(3); Tandy Constr., Inc., B-238619, 
Feb. 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  206 at 1.  Here, because Pacific Photocopy 
did not challenge this matter in either its protest to the agency or 
to our Office within 10 days of learning of the award of the license 
agreements to Judicial Research, this aspect of its protest is 
untimely.

In addition, Pacific Photocopy argues for the first time in a protest 
to our Office received on January 28, 1998, that the estimates set 
forth in the RFQs were not accurate.  In support of this contention, 
Pacific Photocopy explains that it had filed another protest against 
the terms of an RFQ issued for photocopying services to be performed 
in another location in Florida, and that the agency, in response to 
the protest, canceled the solicitation to perform the photocopying 
services "in-house."  Pacific Photocopy asserts that, during a 
telephone discussion of January 27, the agency's attorney stated that 
the agency's "contract branch had come to the conclusion that their 
estimates were not current and that as a consequence, the RFQ had been 
withdrawn."  The protester concludes that "[l]ogically, because . . . 
the estimates for Miami were not current, there is no reason to 
suppose that the estimates for West Palm Beach or Fort Lauderdale are 
any more current, accurate, reasonable or reliable."

We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it does not 
establish a
basis for challenging the agency's action.  The jurisdiction of our 
Office is established by the bid protest provisions of the Competition 
in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C.A.  sec.  3551-3556 (West Supp. 
1997).  Our role in resolving bid protests is to ensure that the 
statutory requirements for full and open competition are met.  Brown 
Assocs. Management Servs., Inc.--Recon., B-235906.3, Mar. 16, 1990, 
90-1 CPD  para.  299 at 4.  To achieve this end, our Bid Protest 
Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.1(c)(4) and (f), require that a protest 
include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for 
protest, and that the grounds stated be legally sufficient.  These 
requirements contemplate that protesters will provide, at a minimum, 
either
allegations or evidence sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish 
the likelihood that
the protester will prevail in its claim of improper agency action.  
Robert Wall Edge--
Recon., 68 Comp. Gen. 352, 353 (1989), 89-1 CPD  para.  335 at 2.

Pacific Photocopy's protest does not include sufficient factual 
information to establish the likelihood that the agency in this case 
violated applicable procurement laws or regulations.  The fact that 
estimates for other RFQs for the same services are inaccurate does not 
indicate that they are inaccurate for these RFQs.[3]

The protests are denied in part and dismissed in part.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The RFQs were identical with the exception of location (i.e., Fort 
Lauderdale or West Palm Beach) and the estimated quantities of 
services to be performed.

2. In its quote, Judicial Research also provided references from three 
individuals that had worked in three different courts.  Two of these 
references were not pursued by the agency because the letters of 
reference were more than 10 years old.  The remaining letter of 
reference, which was more than 4 years old, was also not considered by 
the agency because the individual who wrote the letter, when 
contacted, indicated that he had no knowledge of Judicial Research and 
was familiar with the president of the firm only because of the 
president's prior employment with Pacific Photocopy.  This last 
reference appears to be the basis for the protester's contention that 
the references contacted could not differentiate "the bidder . . . 
from its [principal]."  However, the record shows that this reference 
was not considered by the agency in determining that Judicial 
Research's experience and past performance were acceptable, and, 
contrary to the protester's assertion, this reference was clearly able 
to differentiate between Judicial Research and its president.   

3. We note that Pacific Photocopy, as the incumbent contractor with 
regard to both the West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale RFQs, would 
appear to be in a position to have some insight as to the accuracy of 
the RFQs' estimates.