B-156229, MAY 3, 1965
Highlights
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION: ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO H. THE MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF YOUR REPORTS OF MARCH 18 AND APRIL 12. WE RECOGNIZE THAT BIDDERS WERE ASKED TO BID ON THE ALTERNATES IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THE PROJECT COULD BE AWARDED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AVAILABLE FUNDS. THE POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATES OPEN FOR ACCEPTANCE ARE SO NUMEROUS THAT DIFFERENT BIDDERS MAY BE LOW DEPENDING ON WHICH ALTERNATES ARE SELECTED. WE THEREFORE RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER FOR FUTURE PROCUREMENTS A PROCEDURE FOR STATING IN THE INVITATION THE PRIORITY ORDER IN WHICH ALTERNATES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
B-156229, MAY 3, 1965
TO THE HONORABLE LAWSON B. KNOTT, JR., ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO H. SAND AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, DENYING ITS PROTEST AGAINST AN AWARD TO NORAIR ENGINEERING CORPORATION UNDER GSA PROJECT NO. 49311 FOR AIR CONDITIONING AT THE BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING. THE MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF YOUR REPORTS OF MARCH 18 AND APRIL 12, 1965.
WE BELIEVE THAT CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO REVISING THE CLAUSE DEFINING A "SUBCONTRACTOR" TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION WHETHER IT INCLUDES A FIRM THAT MERELY ASSUMES CONTRACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION, FABRICATION, OR INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT AND ACTUALLY PERFORMS NO ACTIVE DUTIES ON THE SITE. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE RAISE THE QUESTION WHETHER CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO REVISING THE PARAGRAPH TO RECOGNIZE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A MERE SUPPLIER AND THE MANUFACTURER OR FABRICATOR OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, DEPENDING PERHAPS UPON THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE MATERIALS AS COMPARED WITH THE VALUE OF INSTALLATION.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT BIDDERS WERE ASKED TO BID ON THE ALTERNATES IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THE PROJECT COULD BE AWARDED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AVAILABLE FUNDS. NEVERTHELESS, THE POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATES OPEN FOR ACCEPTANCE ARE SO NUMEROUS THAT DIFFERENT BIDDERS MAY BE LOW DEPENDING ON WHICH ALTERNATES ARE SELECTED. SUCH A SITUATION LEADS INEVITABLY TO CHARGES OF FAVORITISM. WE THEREFORE RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER FOR FUTURE PROCUREMENTS A PROCEDURE FOR STATING IN THE INVITATION THE PRIORITY ORDER IN WHICH ALTERNATES WILL BE ACCEPTED. SUCH A ..END :