B-159188, SEP. 28, 1966

B-159188, SEP. 28, 1966

TO THE ENSIGN-BICKFORD COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR ATTORNEY'S LETTER OF AUGUST 26, 1966, REQUESTING THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION OF THE SAME DATE (B-159188) WHEREIN WE DENIED YOUR PROTEST UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. APC- 729-66, ISSUED BY THE AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT AND SUPPLY AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ON APRIL 5, 1966, FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF 19,925,000 FEET OF DETONATING CORD, TYPE I, CLASS E, ON AN F.O.B. ORIGIN BASIS ONLY.

IT IS YOUR ATTORNEY'S CONTENTION THAT, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DISREGARD THE TRANSPORTATION COST FACTOR IN EVALUATING THE VARIOUS OFFERS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE RFP. SPECIFICALLY TAKES ISSUE WITH THE STATEMENT IN OUR DECISION THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS, ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, FOR DESIGNATING GENERAL DESTINATION LOCATIONS AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 1-1305.5. IN THIS RESPECT, HE STATES IN HIS LETTER AS FOLLOWS:

"* * * EVEN WITHOUT DESIGNATING GENERAL DESTINATION LOCATIONS UNDER ASPR 1-1305.5, IT WAS STILL POSSIBLE FOR THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THAT AS BETWEEN ENSIGN-BICKFORD AND CANADIAN COMMERCIAL, THE FORMER'S PROPOSAL WOULD RESULT IN A LOWER COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS INEVITABLY STEMMED FROM THE TRANSPORTATION COST DIFFERENTIAL TO EVERY POSSIBLE DESTINATION. * * *.'

HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT ADVISED US THAT THE PROCUREMENT AGENCY WAS UNABLE, AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE RFP, TO ANTICIPATE EVEN THE GENERAL DESTINATIONS OF THE ITEMS DUE TO THE PROBABILITY THAT THEY COULD BE SHIPPED ANY PLACE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. THE PROCUREMENT AGENCY FURTHER ADVISED THAT THE NAMING OF EVEN GENERAL DELIVERY LOCATIONS IN THE RFP WOULD HAVE BEEN PURE SPECULATION AND WOULD HAVE BEEN PURE SPECULATION AND OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IN DETERMINING THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS INABILITY TO PINPOINT OR GENERALLY ASCERTAIN THE DESTINATION IS REFLECTED IN THE RFP IN AT LEAST TWO INSTANCES. FIRST, THE EVALUATION CRITERIA ON PAGE NO. 5 ADVISED ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS THAT THE AWARD WOULD BE MADE TO THAT OFFEROR SUBMITTING THE LOWEST TOTAL F.O.B. ORIGIN COST TO THE GOVERNMENT; AND AGAIN, ON PAGE NO. 14 WHEREIN IT WAS PROVIDED THAT "GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION COSTS WILL NOT BE A FACTOR IN EVALUATING THE OFFER.'

WE HAVE HELD IN PRIOR CASES THAT WHEN DESTINATION DELIVERY POINTS CANNOT BE DETERMINED IN ADVANCE EVEN GENERALLY AS CONTEMPLATED BY ASPR 1-1305.5, IT IS PROPER FOR THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO DISREGARD THAT FACTOR IF ALL OF THE PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS ARE SO ADVISED AND CAUTIONED TO PREPARE THEIR OFFERS ACCORDINGLY. SEE B-150656, MARCH 20, 1963; B 151342, JUNE 18, 1963; AND B-150995, APRIL 29, 1963.

IT IS FUNDAMENTAL THAT THE RULES OF COMPETITIVE ADVERTISED BIDDING REQUIRE THAT BIDS BE EVALUATED UPON A COMMON BASIS WHICH IS PRESCRIBED IN THE INVITATION. 10 COMP. GEN. 261; 38 ID. 550. INSEPARABLE FROM THIS RULE IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT BIDS GENERALLY ARE TO BE EVALUATED AS OF THE TIME OF OPENING. TO NOW EVALUATE THE BIDS IN THE LIGHT OF CIRCUMSTANCES OR FACTORS APPEARING SUBSEQUENT TO OPENING, AS HAS BEEN URGED HERE, WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THESE BASIC PRINCIPLES.