Skip to main content

B-147884, AUG. 8, 1962

B-147884 Aug 08, 1962
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 29TH WE CONCLUDED THAT YOUR BID WAS NONRESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION BASED ON THE DETERMINATION BY OSW THAT THE SYSTEM YOU PROPOSED. WAS NOT THE FORCED CIRCULATION VAPOR COMPRESSION PROCESS CONTEMPLATED FOR DEMONSTRATION BY THE SPECIFICATIONS. SUCH AS IS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS UNDER THIS INVITATION. ALL BIDDERS HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF A THERMOSYPHON FORCE UNLESS YOU CONTEND THAT IF YOUR BID IS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE OF THE THERMOSYPHON FORCE SO ARE ALL THE BIDS. AS FOLLOWS: "THE THERMOSYPHON EFFECT IS A WELL-KNOWN PHENOMENON FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF AN EVAPORATOR SYSTEM BASED UPON THE FORCED-CIRCULATION PROCESS * * *. PROPOSAL IS BASED ENTIRELY ON THE THERMOSYPHON EFFECT AND THEREFORE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEMONSTRATION OF DEPENDABILITY OF A SYSTEM BASED ON FORCED -CIRCULATION IS NOT MET.

View Decision

B-147884, AUG. 8, 1962

TO WALLACE AND TEARS:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTERS OF JUNE 22, 1962, AND JUNE 15, 1962, WITH ENCLOSURES, AND TO THE PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, INCLUDING MEMORANDUM RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION TO YOU OF MARCH 29, 1962 (B-147884), AND UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 224, ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF SALINE WATER, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. CONVERSION DEMONSTRATION PLANT CAPABLE OF 1,000,000 GALLONS OUTPUT OF ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO, UNDER AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN PUBLIC LAW 85-883,

IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 29TH WE CONCLUDED THAT YOUR BID WAS NONRESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION BASED ON THE DETERMINATION BY OSW THAT THE SYSTEM YOU PROPOSED, WHICH RELIED ON A THERMOSYPHON EFFECT TO REDUCE THE USE OF THE REQUIRED PUMPS, WAS NOT THE FORCED CIRCULATION VAPOR COMPRESSION PROCESS CONTEMPLATED FOR DEMONSTRATION BY THE SPECIFICATIONS. WE DID NOT CONSIDER OTHER POINTS OF ALLEGED NONRESPONSIVENESS IN YOUR BID AS NOTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.

WE ALSO HAD FOR CONSIDERATION A REQUEST FOR A DECISION FROM THE OFFICE OF SALINE WATER RELATIVE TO WHETHER CORRECTION MIGHT BE PERMITTED IN THE BID OF CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON COMPANY (CB AND I), THE SECOND LOW BIDDER BID. THE ERRORS ALLEGED BY THE BIDDER CONSISTED OF (1) NEGLECTING TO CONVERT BRAKE HORSEPOWER VALUES INTO APPLIED HORSEPOWER VALUES AT THE CONSUMPTION PER HOUR OF 2,235 KW INSTEAD OF 2,330 KW; (2) ERRONEOUSLY REPORTING DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN BRACKISH WATER AFTER ION EXCHANGE ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL OPERATING CONDITIONS RATHER THAN UNDER STANDARD CONDITIONS; AND (3) INDICATING AN INCORRECT FIGURE FOR CALCIUM HARDNESS IN BRACKISH WATER AFTER ION EXCHANGE BECAUSE OF A SLIDE RULE ERROR. A CORRECTION OF THE ALLEGED ERROR RELATING TO WARRANTED ELECTRICAL CONSIDERED FOR AWARD AS CORRECTED (B-147884, MARCH 29, 1962). IN APRIL, 1962, CB AND I RECEIVED AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. OSW 14-01-001-224.

IN YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, YOU STATE THAT A THERMOSYPHON EFFECT MUST RESULT BETWEEN THE HIGH AND LOW TEMPERATURE POINTS WITHIN A FLUID SYSTEM, SUCH AS IS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS UNDER THIS INVITATION. ALL BIDDERS HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF A THERMOSYPHON FORCE UNLESS YOU CONTEND THAT IF YOUR BID IS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE OF THE THERMOSYPHON FORCE SO ARE ALL THE BIDS, INCLUDING THE CB AND I BID, UNLESS THE BIDDER SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED MEANS TO ARTIFICIALLY PREVENT THE THERMOSYPHON EFFECT.

THE OSW REPORTED TO US IN THIS REGARD, UNDER DATE OF MAY 22, 1962, AS FOLLOWS:

"THE THERMOSYPHON EFFECT IS A WELL-KNOWN PHENOMENON FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF AN EVAPORATOR SYSTEM BASED UPON THE FORCED-CIRCULATION PROCESS * * *. PROPOSAL IS BASED ENTIRELY ON THE THERMOSYPHON EFFECT AND THEREFORE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEMONSTRATION OF DEPENDABILITY OF A SYSTEM BASED ON FORCED -CIRCULATION IS NOT MET.

"THE FACT THAT THE WALLACE-TEARS' BID PROVIDED PUMPS FOR PRODUCING FORCED -CIRCULATION ILLUSTRATES CLARITY OF THE SPECIFICATION. HOWEVER, BID FOR THE 3 MAJOR PUMPS EVIDENCING A SPECIFIC RELIANCE UPON A THERMOSYPHON EFFECT SYSTEM RATHER THAN A FORCED-CIRCULATION SYSTEM. THAT EACH DESIGNER MIGHT TAKE INTO SOME ACCOUNT BUT THE SPECIFICATION REQUIRED THAT THE PROPOSED SYSTEM BE BASED PRIMARILY ON PUMPS OFFERED BY WALLACE-TEARS WOULD INCREASE THAT BID TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR AN AWARD.'

EACH BIDDER MIGHT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOME THERMOSYPHON EFFECT TO ASSIST FORCED CIRCULATION, HOWEVER, THE SYSTEM PROPOSED MUST BE BASED PRIMARILY ON FORCED CIRCULATION. IT WAS FOUND THAT YOUR BID DID NOT OFFER A SYSTEM BASED PRIMARILY ON FORCED CIRCULATION WHEREAS THE CB AND I BID DID OFFER SUCH SYSTEM.

YOU FURTHER CONTEND THAT THE OTHER BIDDERS ARE NONRESPONSIVE UNDER SECTION 6.2.12 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS ENTITLED "HEAT EXCHANGES" WHICH PROVIDES IN PART THAT:

"THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO USE EXTREME CARE, SO THAT HEATER OVERALL "U" FACTORS OBTAINED IN OPERATION WITH CLEAN TUBES ARE WITHIN PLUS OR MINUS 5 PERCENT OF THE CALCULATED VALUES, OTHERWISE COMPRESSOR AND OTHER PLANT EQUIPMENT, IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE, WOULD HAVE TO OPERATE PROPORTIONATELY OFF THEIR DESIGN POINT ADVERSELY AFFECTING PLANT ECONOMY.'

YOU INTERPRET THE SECTION AS REQUIRING BIDDERS TO FURNISH CALCULATED VALUES WHICH ARE WITHIN 5 PERCENT OF CLEAN TUBES, FREE OF OPERATING FACTORS, AND YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE THE ONLY BIDDER ON THIS INVITATION WHO STAYED WITHIN THIS LIMITATION. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE STATES "OBTAINED IN OPERATION WITH CLEAN TUBES" IMPLIES THAT THE SURFACE HAS NORMAL FOULING BUT IS CLEAN OF SCALE. IN OTHER WORDS, CALCULATED VALUES ARE REQUIRED UNDER DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION.

IT APPEARS TO US THAT WHILE SECTION 6.2.12 COULD BE READ TO REQUIRE CALCULATED VALUES FREE OF ALL FOULING FACTORS, THE MORE REASONABLE MEANING IS THAT ADOPTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND THE OTHER BIDDERS, NAMELY, TO REQUIRE THE CALCULATED VALUES UNDER COMMERCIAL OPERATION. THE OSW POINTS OUT, AND WE AGREE, THAT ITS INTERPRETATION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE INVITATION OBJECT OF PROVIDING A DEMONSTRATION PLANT ON A DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION.

YOU HAVE COMPILED A LIST CONSISTING OF 16 ITEMS OF NONRESPONSIVENESS WHICH YOU ALLEGE APPEAR IN THE CB AND I BID. THE OFFICE OF SALINE WATER HAS REPLIED TO EACH OF THESE MATTERS UNDER REPORT DATE OF MAY 22, 1962. AN ANALYSIS, INCLUDING EXHIBITS, HAS BEEN OFFERED BY YOU FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF DISPUTING EACH OF THE COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE MAY 22 OSW REPLY. THE 16 ITEMS OF YOUR PROTEST AND THE OSW REPLIED THERETO ARE PRESENTED HERE BELOW. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE SUMMARIZED AND COMMENTED ON YOUR ANALYSIS.

ITEMS 1 AND 2--- ION-EXCHANGE RESIN

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"1. THE BID SHOWS WARRANTED COST FOR ION-EXCHANGE RESIN OF $0.391 PER HOUR. FOR THE 175,000 HOUR PERIOD USED FOR BID EVALUATION, THIS BECOMES $68,411. THE SUPPLIER, COCHRANE, INFORMS RESIN REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED AT THREE YEAR INTERVALS. THIS IS 6-2/3 REPLACEMENTS IN 20 YEARS. EACH RESIN REPLACEMENT REQUIRES 846 CUBIC FEET, OR A TOTAL OF 5,640 CUBIC FEET. AT A CUBIC FOOT COST OF $25.00, THIS IS $141,000 FOR 20 YEARS,OR $72,589 MORE THAN THE WARRANTED COST SHOWN.

"2. THE SPECIFICATION LIMITS RATE OF MAKEUP OF RESIN TO 0.5 CUBIC FOOT PER DAY (6.4.3). MANUFACTURER USED WILL NOT GUARANTEE BELOW 0.75 CUBIC FOOT PER DAY.'

OSW COMMENT

"1. THE ION-EXCHANGE RESIN USAGE RATE PROPOSED BY WALLACE-TEARS WAS THE REPLACEMENT AT THREE-YEAR INTERVALS AT A RATE 50 PERCENT HIGHER THAN PERMITTED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE RATE PERMITTED WAS 0.50 CU.FT./HR. MAKE UP OR REPLACEMENT IN 4.67 YEARS. IF IT IS A FACT THAT THE RESIN IN A SYSTEM MUST BE REPLACED IN THREE YEARS THEN THE CORRECTION TO THE WARRANTED COST IS $48,000; LOWER THAN INDICATED BY WALLACE-TEARS BECAUSE RESIN COST IF $20.69 PER CUBIC FOOT INSTEAD OF $25.00. OTHER SUPPLIERS THAN THE FIRM QUOTED BY WALLACE-TEARS HAVE GIVEN ASSURANCE THAT REPLACEMENT NEED NOT BE OVER 0.50 CU.FT./DAY.'

YOU OBSERVE THAT CB AND I USED EXACTLY THE SAME ION-EXCHANGE EQUIPMENT BY THE SAME MANUFACTURER (COCHRANE) AS THAT BID BY WALLACE AND TEARS, AND THE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ION-EXCHANGE SYSTEM ARE IDENTICAL FOR BOTH BIDS. THE DESIGN OF THIS SYSTEM AND THE OPERATING TECHNIQUES ARE PROPRIETARY AND THE PROPERTY ONLY OF COCHRANE. YOU CONTEND THAT CB AND I AND OSW SHOULD PROVE THAT THE ION EXCHANGE RESIN CONSUMPTION WILL BE ANY VALUE LESS THAN 0.75 CUBIC FEET PER DAY SINCE ONLY THE MANUFACTURERS STATEMENT CAN BE ACCEPTED. ALSO, THE COST OF $20.69 PER AND MISLEADING. THIS IS ONLY THE COST OF THE ECONOMY GRADE OF RESIN NOT SUITABLE HERE. INSTEAD, THE BEST GRADE OF RESIN MUST BE USED AT A COST OF ABOUT $25 PER CUBIC FOOT, PLUS $1 PER CUBIC FOOT FOR REPLACEMENT. IT IS YOUR CONCLUSION THAT YOUR FIGURE OF $141,000 IS CORRECT UNLESS OSW CAN SHOW THAT THE REPLACEMENT COST IS LESS THAN $25 PER CUBIC FOOT.

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THIS OFFICE HAS NEITHER AN ENGINEERING STAFF NOR THE FACILITIES TO MAKE EVALUATIONS REGARDING THE CONFORMITY OF BIDS QUESTIONS OF FACT BETWEEN A PROTESTANT AND A GOVERNMENT AGENCY WE ARE B- 139830, AUGUST 29, 1959. THE JURISDICTION OF OUR OFFICE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE STATED, GENERALLY, AS FOLLOWS:

"IT IS THE PROVINCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS TO DRAFT PROPER SPECIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO SUBMIT FOR FAIR COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROPOSED CONTRACTS TO SUPPLY GOVERNMENTAL NEEDS, AND TO DETERMINE FACTUALLY WHETHER ARTICLES OFFERED MEET THESE SPECIFICATIONS. IT IS THE PROVINCE OF THIS OFFICE IN SETTLING ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINING THE AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS TO SEE THAT CONTRACTS INVOLVING THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS BE LEGALLY MADE, INCLUDING OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW RESPECTING COMPETITIVE BIDDING; AND WHEN NECESSARY TO THAT END, TO DETERMINE AS A MATTER OF LAW THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE TERMS AND SPECIFICATIONS USED.' (17 COMP. GEN. 554, 557).

IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR FUNCTIONS TO DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF ION-EXCHANGE RESIN NEED BE OVER 0.50 CUBIC FEET PER DAY, OR TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESIN COST SHOULD BE COMPUTED AT $20.69 PER CUBIC FOOT, OR AT $25, AS YOU CONTEND. IN THE FACE OF THE CONFLICTING

ITEM 3--- SALT REQUIREMENT

"SALT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR REGENERATION OF RESIN. SPECIFICATION LIMITS USE TO 300 POUNDS PER HOUR OF NA CL (6.43). AT THIS RATE COST NOT SHOWN WOULD BE $39,000 FOR 20 YEARS. ALSO, THE MANUFACTURER'S PROPOSAL TO BIDDERS FOR THE ION-EXCHANGE EQUIPMENT INCLUDED A COST FOR HARNESS ANALYZERS AT $30.00 PER MONTH OR $4,200 FOR 20 YEARS. IT IS WALLACE- TEARS' INFORMATION THAT THIS COST IS NOT SHOWN.'

OSW COMMENTS

"SALT REQUIREMENT IS BASED UPON THE AMOUNT USED DURING THE WARRANTED PERFORMANCE TEST PERIOD. IF THE SLURRY TECHNIQUE IS USED NO SALT WILL BE REQUIRED TO OPERATE THE PLANT. NEITHER WILL THE EXTRA HARDNESS ANALYSIS BE REQUIRED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE BID EVALUATION AVOIDED INCLUSION OF THOSE ITEMS WHICH WERE THE SAME FOR ALL BIDDERS.'

YOU CONTEND THAT THE OSW REPLY IS NOT FULLY PERTINENT SINCE CB AND I USES THE ION-EXCHANGE TECHNIQUE RATHER THAN THE SLURRY TECHNIQUE. UNDER SECTION 1.10 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE COST OF SALT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF OPERATION OF THE ION-EXCHANGE SYSTEM, AND UNDER SECTION 6.4.7 (LAST PARAGRAPH) THE BIDDER MUST USE HARDNESS ANALYSIS AT A COST OF $4,200 OVER 20 YEARS.

THE POSSIBLE COST OF SALT CONSUMPTION AND HARDNESS ANALYSIS WAS EXCLUDED AS AN EVALUATION FACTOR FROM ALL BIDS. SINCE THE BID EVALUATION SPREAD BETWEEN CB AND I AND THE OTHER BIDS IS CONSIDERABLE (THE NEXT LOW BID IS EVALUATED AT $7,186,382) WE CANNOT SEE THAT CB AND I GAINED AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE FOR THE AWARD OVER BIDDERS EMPLOYING THE SLURRY TECHNIQUE.

ITEM 4--- RUBBER LINING

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"THE SPECIFICATION (7.6.4) REQUIRES RUBBER LINED PIPING BE PROVIDED FOR THE FEED WATER UP TO THE DEGASIFIER. THE RUBBER LINING WOULD COST ABOUT $30,000. IT IS NOT SHOWN IN THE BID. ALSO, THE BID DOES NOT SHOW THE RUBBER LINING FOR THE INTERNAL SURFACE REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATION (6.5.4).'

OSW COMMENT

"SECTION 7.6.4 ON PAGE 7-105 SPECIFIES BRINE SERVICE TO BE HANDLED IN SCHEDULE B-41 PIPE WHICH IS DESCRIBED ON PAGE 7-110 AND 111. HOWEVER, WELL WATER PIPING IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7.6.13, PAGE 7-126 AS "SCHEDULE B-13 (WHICH QUOTES MIL-P22245) OR NO. 12 GAUGE STEEL PIPE WITH CEMENT MORTAR LINED INTERIOR. THERE IS SOME MISUNDERSTANDING BY WALLACE-TEARS IN REGARD TO THE USE OF RUBBER LINING AS THE TITLE OF MIL-P-22245 IS "PIPE AND PIPE FITTINGS, THERMOSETTING REINFORCED PLASTIC.' THE CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON COMPANY BID DOES NOT SHOW THIS SPECIFIC ITEM AS BID AS IT IS INCLUDED IN SECTION 1.8.14 OF THE SCHEDULE OF PRICES, THERE BEING NO EXCEPTION TAKEN BY THE BIDDER.'

YOU ASSERT, THAT THE OSW REPLY GIVES A MISLEADING REFERENCE TO PIPING SPECIFICATIONS BUT DOES NOT ANSWER THE PROTEST THAT THE ION EXCHANGE EQUIPMENT IS NOT LINED.

THE BIDDER DID NOT INDICATE ANY EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS RELATING TO HIS ION-EXCHANGE EQUIPMENT. IT INSERTED A PRICE UNDER SECTION 1.8.4 OF THE SCHEDULE OF PRICES, TO FURNISH AND INSTALL ION-EXCHANGE EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6.4 OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THIS REGARD.

ITEM 5--- EVAPORATOR HEATER TUBE ACCESS

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"SPECIFICATION (6.2.4) REQUIRES REMOVABLE PIPING SECTIONS AT EITHER END OF HEATERS FOR EXPOSING TUBE SHEETS AND SERVICING TUBES. NO SUCH REMOVABLE SECTION IS PROVIDED FOR THE ENDS OF THE EVAPORATOR HEATERS.'

OSW COMMENTS

"SECTION 6.2.4 REQUIRES "THE EVAPORATOR HEATER SHALL BE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL WITH DUE CONSIDERATION GIVE TO TUBE REMOVAL.' THIS WAS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON COMPANY BID BY MEANS OF MANHOLE AND MAKING THE CHAMBER AT THE END OF THE EVAPORATOR SO LARGE THAT TUBES MAY BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE TUBE SHEET INSIDE THE CHAMBER.' YOU SAY THAT IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR TUBE REMOVAL, SECTION 6.2.4 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE THAT "THERE SHALL BE REMOVABLE PIPING SECTION AT EITHER END OF HEATERS FOR EXPOSING THE TUBE SHEETS AND SERVICING TUBES. "SERVICING THE TUBES IN THESE HEATERS MEANS EITHER CLEANING THE TUBES OR DRILLING THEM OUT AND REPLACING THEM, ALL AT CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE. IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE CB AND I DESIGN PERMITS WORKING ON THE TUBES AT THE LOWER TUBE SHEET.

ON THIS POINT WE MUST ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING THAT CB AND I HAS OFFERED AN EVAPORATOR HEATER WHICH GIVES DUE CONSIDERATION TO TUBE REMOVAL. SECTION 6.2.4 REQUIRES THAT THERE SHALL BE REMOVABLE PIPING SECTION AT EITHER END OF HEATERS FOR EXPOSING THE TUBE SHEETS AND SERVICING TUBES. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT CB AND I HAS PROVIDED ACCESS BY MEANS OF A MANHOLE AND BY MAKING THE CHAMBER AT THE END OF THE HEATER LARGE ENOUGH TO PERMIT REMOVAL OF TUBES INSIDE THE CHAMBER.

ITEM 6--- CIRCULATING PUMP DESIGN

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"THE BID PROPOSES USE OF A CIRCULATING PUMP OF A DESIGN THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED. IN FACT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT SUCH PUMP HAS EVER BEEN BUILT AND THE BIDDER ATTEMPTS TO PREDICT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PUMP BY EXTRAPOLATING DATA ON ACTUAL PUMPS OF SIMILAR DESIGN THAT VARY IN SIZE FROM 23 PERCENT TO 48 PERCENT OF THE PROPOSED PUMP.'

OSW COMMENT

"THE CIRCULATING PUMP PROPOSED BY CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON CO. IS BEING SUPPLIED BY A PUMP MANUFACTURER WHO GUARANTEES A HIGH EFFICIENCY BY PERFORMANCE. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO FIND THAT THE EXACT SIZE PUMP PROPOSED IN THESE LARGE VOLUMES HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN BUILT. THE SCALE UP FACTOR USED IS MODEST AND IS ACCEPTABLE IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE.'

YOU SAY THAT SINCE THE PUMP OFFERED BY CB AND I HAS NOT BEEN BUILT, IT CANNOT BE GUARANTEED BY PERFORMANCE. PUMP SCALEUP IS ACCEPTABLE ONLY WHEN NECESSARY, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY HERE. YOU CITE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES TO THE SAME EFFECT. HOWEVER, WE MUST RELY ON THE ENGINEERING JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AS TO WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE.

ITEM 7--- PUMP REMOVAL

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"THE BID DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR REMOVAL OF ROTATING ELEMENTS FROM THE CIRCULATING PUMPS INDEPENDENT OF PIPING. THE BIDDER USES ACTUAL PIPING SPACER PIECE, A CLEAR VIOLATION.'

OSW COMMENT

"CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON PROVIDE FOR REMOVAL OF ROTATING ELEMENTS BY REMOVING PART OF THE PUMP. FLANGES OPENED ARE NOT PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER, HENCE DO NOT PRESENT THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED WHEN USING A PIPE SECTION WITH PARALLEL FLANGES.'

YOU CITE SECTION 6.2.11.5 OF THE SPECIFICATION HEADED "PUMP FEATURES," WHICH STATES "ROTATING ELEMENTS REMOVABLE INDEPENDENT OF PIPING.' YOU FAIL TO OBSERVE IN THE CB AND I DRAWINGS (YOUR EXHIBIT F) THAT THIS REQUIREMENT IS MET. FURTHERMORE, YOU OBSERVE THAT THE FLANGES, AS SHOWN BY THE CB AND I DRAWING, ARE PARALLEL.

THE OSW IS SATISFIED THAT CB AND I DOES PROVIDE FOR REMOVAL OF ROTATING ELEMENTS BY REMOVING PART OF THE PUMP. ALSO OSW DOES NOT ENVISION THE PROBLEMS IN THE CB AND I PROPOSAL THAT OCCUR WHEN USING A PIPE SECTION WITH PARALLEL FLANGES.

ITEM 8--- PUMP SPEEDS

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"EXCEPT FOR THE EVAPORATOR CIRCULATING PUMPS, THE OTHER PUMPS QUOTED WERE NOT FOR SPEEDS BELOW 1,800 R.P.M. VIOLATING ITEMS 905, 920A, 920B AND 926.'

OSW COMMENT

"SECTION 6.9.2 RELATIVE TO PUMPS STATES,"ROTATION SPEEDS OF PUMPS HANDLING WATER AT THE BOILING POINT ARE PREFERRED AT 900 AND 1200 RPM DEPENDING ON THE SUBMERGENCE AVAILABLE. . .' THE CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON COMPANY BID PROPOSES 1750 RPM PUMPS WHICH MAY BE SUITABLE IF SUITABLE SUBMERGENCE IS SUPPLIED. THE SPECIFICATION GAVE A PREFERENCE FOR THE SPEED.'

YOU SAY IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT OSW INTENDED THAT ALL PUMPS HANDLING BOILING WATER SHOULD BE OPERATED EITHER AT 900 OR 1200 RPM AND THAT ONLY IN THE CASE OF COLD WATER COULD THE PUMPS BE OPERATED AT 1800 RPM.

SECTION 6.9.2 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, ENTITLED "GENERAL CONDITION," STATES "ROTATION SPEED OF PUMP HANDLING WATER AT THE BOILING POINT ARE PREFERRED AT 900 TO 1200 RPM DEPENDING ON THE SUBMERGENCE AVAILABLE * * *.' AGREE WITH OSW THAT WHILE THE SPECIFICATIONS STATE A PREFERENCE FOR PUMP ROTATION SPEED OF 900 TO 1200 RPM, IT DID NOT PROHIBIT A HIGHER SPEED WITH SUITABLE SUBMERGENCE.

ITEM 9--- TORSIONAL ANALYSIS

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"AS WITH WALLACE-TEARS, NO ACTUAL TORSIONAL ANALYSIS HAS BEEN FURNISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC COMPRESSOR GEAR AND MOTOR CONTAINED IN THE BID.'

OSW COMMENT

"IN REGARD TO TORSIONAL ANALYSIS THE CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON COMPANY BID PRESENTED THE STATEMENT THAT TORSIONAL ANALYSIS OF A SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT RECENTLY INSTALLED HAD CERTAIN CRITICAL SPEEDS WHICH WERE SATISFACTORY FOR THE DRIVE PROVIDED.'

YOU STATE THAT A TORSIONAL ANALYSIS CAN BE MADE ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC SIZE AND SHAPE MAKING UP THE COMPLETE ROTATING ASSEMBLY OF A CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR, WHICH CB AND I HAS FAILED TO DO.

WE ACCEPT THE JUDGMENT OF OSW AS TO WHAT IT CONSIDERS ADEQUATE AS TO THE TORSIONAL ANALYSIS NEEDED TO INDICATE COMPLIANCE OF EQUIPMENT WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. IN THIS CASE IT IS RELYING ON INFORMATION GAINED FROM A RECENTLY INSTALLED SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT BY CB AND I.

ITEM 10--- VALVES AND INSTRUMENTS

WALLACE-TEAR

"AS WITH WALLACE-TEARS, MANY VALVES AND INSTRUMENTS WERE REMOVED IN THE INTEREST OF EFFICIENT ENGINEERING PRACTICE.'

OSW COMMENT

"CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON TAKES NO EXCEPTION TO MEETING THE SPECIFICATION IN REGARD TO SUPPLYING THE VALVES. FOR INSTRUMENTATION, THE STATEMENT IS MADE ON PAGE 9 OF PROCESS MMENTS,"INSTRUMENTATION WILL BE PROVIDED AS CALLED FOR IN SECTION 7.8 OF INQUIRY SPECIFICATIONS AS MODIFIED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF DOUBLE EFFECT EVAPORATOR SYSTEM.' THIS IS EXPECTED FOR A PLANT WITH TWO EVAPORATORS.'

YOU SAY THAT THE PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM INCLUDED WITH THE CB AND I BID DISCLOSES OMISSIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE SPECIFICATION, WHICH YOU LIST.

THE CB AND I BID TAKES NO EXCEPTION TO MEETING THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AS TO SUPPLYING VALVES. THE OSW FINDS THAT THE PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM INCLUDED WITH THE CB AND I BID SATISFACTORILY INDICATES COMPLIANCE.

ITEM 11--- BOILER DATA

WALLANCE-TEARS PROTEST

"BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH A SPECIFIED FORM WITH BOILER DATA AND REQUIRED EQUIPMENT SHOWN THEREON. IT WAS NOT FURNISHED.'

OSW COMMENT

"CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON SUPPLIED DATA SHEETS PROVIDING BOILER AUXILIARY SOURCES AND DATA TO IDENTIFY THE EQUIPMENT BEING SUPPLIED.'

YOU CITE SECTION 6.6.7 OF THE SPECIFICATION WHICH READS "THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE TABULATION BELOW AND ADD TO THIS LIST FOR ALL OTHER ITEMS OF AUXILIARY TO BE SUPPLIED THE MANUFACTURER'S NAME, MODEL NUMBER, SIZE, CAPACITY AND MATERIALS. COPIES OF THIS TABULATION SHALL BE SUPPLIED WITH BIDS.' YOU SAY THAT CB AND I HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE SPECIFIED FORM, NOR INCLUDED MANY ITEMS OF DATA REQUIRED. NO DATE IS GIVEN FOR THE PHOSPHATE FEEDER, THE AGITATOR AND THE FUEL OIL TANK.

OSW INDICATES THAT ALL THE REQUIRED DATA HAS BEEN PROVIDED ON DATA SHEETS AND BY REFERENCES TO SOURCES WHICH SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFY THE EQUIPMENT BEING SUPPLIED. IT IS NOT MATERIAL THAT THE ENCLOSED DATA SHEETS WERE NOT UTILIZED IF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION IS OTHERWISE SUPPLIED WITH THE BID.

ITEM 12--- SEED GRINDER

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"THE GRINDER PROPOSED FOR THE SEED SYSTEM IS CLEARLY INADEQUATE.'

OSW COMMENT

"CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON SHOW A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IN THE DRAWING WHICH MAY BE TAKEN FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN A GRINDER ON PAGE 5 OF THE PROCESS COMMENTS. ITEM 3412-C-GRINDER IS SPECIFIED.'

YOU ASSERT THAT CB AND I INTENDED TO OFFER THE DIAGRAMMED PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AS ITS PROPOSED GRINDER SINCE NO OTHER PIECE IS INDICATED. THIS PIECE IS CLEARLY INADEQUATE, AS INDICATED BY ITS PRICE.

IT MAY BE THAT CB AND I HAS UNDERESTIMATED ITS COST ON THE GRINDER. HOWEVER, THE BIDDER IS OBLIGATED TO SUPPLY "ITEM 3412C--- GRINDER" AS INDICATED.

ITEM 13--- SPARE PARTS

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"BIDDERS ARE REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS (2.2.19) TO FURNISH AN ITEMIZED LIST BY QUANTITY AND PRICE FOR SPARE PARTS. IT WAS NOT FURNISHED.'

OSW COMMENT

"THE ITEMS AND PRICE FOR SPARE PARTS ARE LISTED UNDER SECTION 2.2.19 OF THE BID.'

SECTION 2.2.19 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS STATE THAT "EACH BIDDER SHALL TABULATE AND SUBMIT BY ITEM, QUANTITY, AND PRICE ALL SPECIAL COSTS AND SPARE PARTS REQUIRED.' YOU SAY THAT CB AND I MERELY GIVES A BRIEF TABULATION OF LUMP-SUM DOLLAR VALUES OF SPARE PARTS FOR EACH MAIN SECTION OF THE BID, BUT THAT THE TABULATION IS NEITHER ITEMIZED NOR DOES IT SHOW QUANTITIES. THE CB AND I LIST IS INADEQUATE.

THE INFORMATION REQUIRED OF BIDDERS BY SECTION 6.2.19 IS FOR THE USE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN OBTAINING SPARE PARTS AND TOOLS FOR THE PLANT OPERATION. SINCE OSW APPARENTLY CONSIDERS THE CB AND I LIST TO BE ADEQUATE WE SEE NO BASIS FOR OBJECTION.

ITEM 14--- FOULING FACTOR

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"THE SPECIFICATION DATA SHEETS FOR ITEMS 602 AND 603 REQUIRE A FOULING FACTOR BE SHOWN FOR BOTH THE TUBE SIDE AND THE SHELL SIDE. BOTH VALUES WERE NOT SHOWN.'

OSW COMMENT

"THE FOULING FACTOR FOR HEAT EXCHANGER 602 WAS REQUESTED FOR EACH SIDE OF THE EXCHANGER. ONLY ONE FACTOR WAS SUPPLIED OF A MAGNITUDE TO EQUAL THE TWO FACTORS INVOLVED. THIS IS A USUAL PROCEDURE.'

YOU STATE THAT ONLY ONE FOULING FACTOR WAS SHOWN WHERE TWO FOULING FACTORS WERE REQUIRED, AND THAT THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THE MOST EXPENSIVE ITEM OF EQUIPMENT IN THE PLANT WAS NOT FURNISHED. IN THE RARE EVENT THAT A SINGLE FOULING FACTOR IS SHOWN, IT IS CLEARLY STATED IN THE APPROPRIATE SPACE THAT THE FOULING FACTOR IS OVERALL. IN THE CASE OF CB AND I, IT LEFT A BLANK IN ITS BID UNDER SECTION 6.7.1 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SHELL SIDE FOULING FACTOR FOR ITEM 602.

WE NOTE THAT A FOULING FACTOR FOR HEAT EXCHANGER 602 WAS SUPPLIED UNDER THE "TUBE SIDE" COLUMN OF THE DATA SHEET. OSW REGARDS THE ONE FACTOR INDICATED AS EQUAL IN MAGNITUDE TO THE TWO FACTORS INDICATED, EVEN THOUGH CB AND I DID NOT SPECIFY IT AS AN OVERALL FACTOR.

ITEM 15--- DEGASIFIER DETAILS

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"SPECIFICATION (6.5) REQUIRES THE BIDDER TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS CONCERNING THE DEGASIFIER. SUCH DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED.'

OSW COMMENT

"VACUUM DEGASIFIER IS SPECIFIED ON SIX DATA SHEETS AND ONE DRAWING OF CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON BID. THE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDE FOR THE PERFORMANCE AND DIMENSIONS OF THE EQUIPMENT.'

SECTION 6.5.4 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS STATES THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE WITH HIS BID A SKETCH SHOWING THE 17 LISTED ITEMS. ALSO 6.5.5 REQUIRES A SKETCH SHOWING MAJOR DIMENSIONS AND THICKNESS OF TUBE SHEETS. YOU CLAIM THAT CB AND I HAS FAILED TO ENCLOSE MANY OF THOSE SKETCHES. WHILE THERE MAY BE A FAILURE OF CB AND I TO SUPPLY SOME OF THESE SKETCHES, ENOUGH DATA HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO INFORM OSW AS TO THE DETAILS OF THE VACUUM DEGASIFIER PROPOSED BY THE BIDDER. THE ABSENCE OF CERTAIN OF THESE SKETCHES IS NOT MATERIAL.

ITEM 16--- PROOF OF NONBOILING

WALLACE-TEARS PROTEST

"BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW PROOF OF NONBOILING FOR BRINE FILM TEMPERATURE AT DOWN-STREAM END OF THE TUBE WALL, RATHER THAN DOWN STREAM MAIN BODY TEMPERATURE. THE TWO TEMPERATURES USED IN THE PROOF OF NONBOILING ARE 217.0 DEGREES F AND 213.0 DEGREES F. THE BIDDER SHOWS TUBE SIDE TEMPERATURES FOR ITEMS 601 AND 602 AS 224.0/228.1 DEGREES F AND 215.2/219.2 DEGREES F RESPECTIVELY. THE TEMPERATURES USED TO PROVE NONBOILING CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE TEMPERATURES BID FOR ITEMS 601 AND 602.'

OSW COMMENT

"PROOF OF NON-BOILING OF BRINE IN EVAPORATOR TUBES AS SUPPLIED BY CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON HAS AN ERROR IN THE ASSUMPTION AS TO TEMPERATURES INVOLVED. THE HEAD REQUIRED CALCULATES TO BE 2.83 FT. WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 3.00 FT. THE MISTAKE CHANGES THE DEPTH REQUIRED FROM 10.4 FT. TO 11.0 FT. THEY HAVE PROVIDED 12.34 FT. OF DEPTH SLIGHTLY OVER ONE FOOT MORE THAN REQUIRED.'

YOU STATE THAT PROOF OF NONBOILING AND THE USE OF THE CORRECT TEMPERATURE, NAMELY, THE TUBE WALL TEMPERATURE RATHER THAN THE MAIN BODY WATER TEMPERATURE, IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE CORRECT DESIGN FOR THIS PART OF THE PLANT. THE FACT THAT AN ELEMENTARY ERROR WAS MADE IN THE CALCULATION INCLUDED IN THE BID HAS AN IMPORT THAT IS CLEAR TO YOU.

SECTION 5.1.2 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, HEADED "DESIGN CONDITIONS" STATES THAT "THE EVAPORATOR HEAT EXCHANGERS ARE TO BE DESIGNED ON THE BASIS OF NO BOILING IN THE TUBES. THIS REQUIRES THAT SUFFICIENT HYDROSTATIC HEAD BE IMPOSED ON THE EXCHANGERS TO AVOID BOILING AT THE MAXIMUM TUBE WALL TEMPERATURE AT THE EXIT END OF THE TUBES.'

THE OSW POINTS OUT THAT THE CB AND I HAS AN ERROR IN ITS PROOF OF NONBOILING. THE MISTAKE CHANGES THE DEPTH REQUIRED FROM 10.4 TO 11.0 FT., BUT CB AND I HAS PROVIDED 12.34 FT., WHICH IS STILL SUFFICIENT TO PROVE NONBOILING DESPITE THE ERROR.

ANOTHER MATTER YOU NOTE WITH REGARD TO THE CB AND I BID IS AN ERASURE ON THE LAST THREE DIGITS OF THE ORIGINAL POWER WARRANTY FIGURE (2,235 KW) ON PAGE 1-19 OF THE INVITATION, WITHOUT AN INITIAL NEXT TO THE ERASURE. YOU POINT OUT THAT SECTION 1.3 OF THE INVITATION, PARAGRAPH 5/A) OF THE "INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS," REQUIRES ALL ERASURES TO BE INITIALED BY THE PERSON SIGNING THE BID. SINCE THE BIDDER FAILED TO INITIAL THE ERASURE OF THIS IMPORTANT WARRANTY FIGURE, YOU CONTEND THAT THE BID IS NONRESPONSIVE. THE OSW REPORTS THAT TWO COPIES OF THE CB AND I BID WERE RECEIVED. ONE COPY DOES NOT CONTAIN THE ERASURE IN QUESTION AND BOTH COPIES AGREE AS TO THE FIGURES PRESENTED.

IT IS NOTED THAT PARAGRAPH 11 (B) OF THE "INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS" STATES THAT THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO WAIVE ANY INFORMALITY IN BIDS RECEIVED WHEN SUCH WAIVER IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE RECEIPT OF ONE BID COPY WITHOUT ANY ERASURE REMOVES DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE BIDDER INSERTED THE ERASED FIGURES. WE BELIEVE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER PROPERLY WAIVED THE INFORMALITY. THE FAILURE TO INITIAL DID NOT EFFECT THE PRICE, QUALITY, QUANTITY OR OBLIGATION OF THE BID. SEE 30 COMP. GEN. 179.

YOU CONTEND THAT SINCE CB AND I WAS AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ITS BID AFTER THE BID OPENING, YOU ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY OSW WITH REGARD TO CORRECTION OF THE THERMOSYPHON EFFECT PROVIDED IN YOUR BID.

YOUR BID WAS FOUND TO BE NONRESPONSIVE AS SUBMITTED. AN ALLEGATION OF ERROR IS PROPER FOR CONSIDERATION ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE BID IS RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION ON ITS FACE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A BID IS RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION IS FOR DETERMINATION ONLY UPON THE BASIS OF THE BID AS SUBMITTED. SEE 40 COMP. GEN. 432; ID. 132; 38 COMP. GEN. 819. FOR THIS REASON YOUR BID COULD NOT PROPERLY BE CORRECTED AFTER THE BID OPENING. IN THE CASE OF CB AND I, ITS BID WAS MATERIALLY RESPONSIVE AS SUBMITTED. THE CORRECTIONS ALLOWED DID NOT INVOLVE THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE BID.

IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED A BASIS UPON WHICH THIS OFFICE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN UPSETTING THE AWARD MADE TO CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON COMPANY UNDER THE SUBJECT INVITATION.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs