B-155666, MAR. 24, 1965

B-155666, MAR. 24, 1965

TO HYDROMATICS, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 25, 1965, REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 21, 1965, WHEREIN WE CONCLUDED THAT THE UNITED STATES NAVY SHIPS PARTS CONTROL CENTER, MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER YOUR PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 5-99986.

BRIEFLY STATED, YOUR PROTEST WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WAS HAND-CARRIED AND WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RECEIVED AT THE DESIGNATED OFFICE PRIOR TO THE TIME SPECIFIED FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU CONTEND THAT UNDER PARAGRAPH 3-505 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY WAS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT LATE HAND CARRIED PROPOSALS WERE NOT FOR CONSIDERATION IN MAKING AWARD OF CONTRACTS. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT LIMITED IN ITS CONSIDERATION OF LATE PROPOSALS TO CASES WHERE A PROPOSAL OFFERS "SOME IMPORTANT TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH.' FURTHERMORE, YOU CONTEND THAT RESCHEDULING OF THE WORK ON THE AFFECTED SUBMARINES IN ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL OTHER THAN YOUR PROPOSAL INVOLVED CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT ASPR 3- 505 (B) PROVIDES THAT:

"/B) IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SECRETARY CONCERNED AUTHORIZES AN EXCEPTION FROM (A) ABOVE, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHALL RESOLICIT ALL FIRMS (INCLUDING LATER OFFERORS) WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED PROPOSALS AND ARE DETERMINED TO BE CAPABLE OF MEETING CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. SUCH RESOLICITATION SHALL SPECIFY A DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF NEW PROPOSALS AND INCLUDE THE "LATE PROPOSALS" PROVISION SET FORTH IN (D) BELOW.'

THIS PROVISION FOR PROCEEDING WITH THE RESOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF LATE PROPOSALS ON AN "EXCEPTION" BASIS WAS TO APPLY GENERALLY TO THOSE CASES WHERE SUCH PROPOSALS OFFERED SOME NEW TECHNICAL ADVANCE. ASIDE FROM THIS MATTER, IT IS NOTED FROM AN EXAMINATION OF A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 2, 1965, ADDRESSED TO YOU BY THE ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR PURCHASING, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, THAT YOU WERE ADVISED THAT WHILE YOUR PROPOSAL DID OFFER DELIVERY OF CERTAIN ITEMS ON THE DATES SET FORTH IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, THE EXCEPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SET FORTH BY YOU IN THE TRANSMITTAL OF YOUR PROPOSAL IMPOSED A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS WHICH CLEARLY DID NOT CONFORM EITHER TO THE MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROPOSAL OR THE DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS. WHILE YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR STATEMENTS ACCOMPANYING YOUR PROPOSAL MERELY AMPLIFIED THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DID NOT CONTAIN QUALIFICATIONS TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, WE MUST ORDINARILY ACCEPT THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF YOUR PROPOSAL AS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

THE FACT THAT THE STATEMENT OF YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAND-CARRIED YOUR PROPOSAL DIFFERS IN SOME OF THE DETAILS FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT GUARD AT THE MAIN GATE OF THE GOVERNMENT PLANT WHERE THE CONTRACTING OFFICE IS LOCATED DOES NOT DISPROVE THE FACT THAT YOUR HAND- CARRIED PROPOSAL WAS A LATE PROPOSAL.

YOUR LETTER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANYTHING WHICH WOULD WARRANT A CHANGE IN THE CONCLUSION HERETOFORE ..END :