B-162728, JAN. 26, 1968
Highlights
WHERE SECOND LOW BIDDER CONTENDS THAT LOW BIDDER IS "BUYING IN" AND NONRESPONSIVE TO THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING REQUIREMENT AND WHEN SOLICITOR OF LABOR ADVISES THAT WAGE RATE DETERMINATIONS HAVE EXPIRED. EXTENSIONS WILL NOT BE GRANTED. THE EFFECT IS TO RENDER SECOND LOW BIDDER'S AND LOW BIDDER'S CONTENTIONS ACADEMIC. THEREFORE AIR FORCE RECOMMENDATION TO READVERTISE PROCUREMENT IS PROPER. LOLA DICKERMAN: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER OF JANUARY 15. HAS CONTENDED THAT AN AWARD SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO ESSCO BECAUSE IT ALLEGED ESSCO IS "BUYING IN" AND IS ALSO NONRESPONSIVE TO A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING REQUIREMENT. THAT ESSCO IS NEITHER "BUYING IN" NOR NONRESPONSIVE AND THAT THE AWARD SHOULD BE MADE TO IT.
B-162728, JAN. 26, 1968
BIDS - WAGE RATE DETERMINATIONS - EXPIRATION DECISION CONCERNING PROTEST AGAINST REJECTION OF BID OF ELECTRONIC SPACE STRUCTURES CORPORATION (ESSCO) FOR RECONDITIONING AND SUPPLY SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT RADOMES FOR AIR FORCE. WHERE SECOND LOW BIDDER CONTENDS THAT LOW BIDDER IS "BUYING IN" AND NONRESPONSIVE TO THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING REQUIREMENT AND WHEN SOLICITOR OF LABOR ADVISES THAT WAGE RATE DETERMINATIONS HAVE EXPIRED, AND EXTENSIONS WILL NOT BE GRANTED, THE EFFECT IS TO RENDER SECOND LOW BIDDER'S AND LOW BIDDER'S CONTENTIONS ACADEMIC. THEREFORE AIR FORCE RECOMMENDATION TO READVERTISE PROCUREMENT IS PROPER.
TO MRS. LOLA DICKERMAN:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER OF JANUARY 15, 1968, FROM MR. LEON J. GLAZERMAN, AND PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE FROM YOU, PROTESTING AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE ELECTRONIC SPACE STRUCTURES CORPORATION (ESSCO) LOW BID UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS F04606-68-B-0122, COVERING RECONDITIONING, EMERGENCY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPLY SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT RADOMES.
UNITEC INDUSTRIES, INC. -- THE SECOND LOW BIDDER -- HAS CONTENDED THAT AN AWARD SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO ESSCO BECAUSE IT ALLEGED ESSCO IS "BUYING IN" AND IS ALSO NONRESPONSIVE TO A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING REQUIREMENT. YOU CONTEND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT ESSCO IS NEITHER "BUYING IN" NOR NONRESPONSIVE AND THAT THE AWARD SHOULD BE MADE TO IT.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT OF JANUARY 4, 1968, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED TO YOU, ADVISES THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE WAGE RATE DETERMINATIONS IN THE INVITATION HAVE EXPIRED AND THAT THE SOLICITOR OF LABOR HAS ADVISED THAT EXTENSIONS WILL NOT BE GRANTED. THIS ADVICE HAS THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF RENDERING THE UNITEC CONTENTIONS AND YOUR VIEWS ACADEMIC. SEE 41 COMP. GEN. 593, WHEREIN WE HELD THAT AN AWARD UNDER AN INVITATION CONTAINING EXPIRED DAVIS-BACON ACT WAGE DETERMINATIONS VIOLATES THE RULES OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND THAT BIDS RECEIVED UNDER THE INVITATION SHOULD BE REJECTED AND THE PROCUREMENT READVERTISED. SEE, ALSO, 45 COMP. GEN. 325.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE AIR FORCE RECOMMENDATION IN THE JANUARY 4 REPORT THAT THE PROCUREMENT BE READVERTISED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS PROPER.