B-147107, DEC. 11, 1961

B-147107, DEC. 11, 1961

TO FRANKLIN PRINTING COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 24, 1961, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 12, 1961, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT NO VALID BASIS EXISTED FOR US TO OBJECT TO THE ACTION OF THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD IN AWARDING A CONTRACT TO TECHNIDATA, INC., UNDER INVITATION NO. 151-396-61.

THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 12, 1961, AND THEREFORE WILL NOT BE REPEATED HERE.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE:

"I WOULD LIKE TO BRING OUT ALSO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT ONLY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DOES HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW DETERMINATIONS OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. IT IS WELL NOTED THAT THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD INSPECTORS DETERMINED THAT THE BID OF TECHNIDATA, INC. SHOULD BE REJECTED BECAUSE THE CORPORATION LACKS ADEQUATE CAPACITY AND CREDIT TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT. THE NAVAL SPECIFICATIONS CALLED FOR THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER TO BE IN OPERATION AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED AND THIS WAS NOT THE CASE AS WAS DETAILED IN THE REPORT OF SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION INVESTIGATORS. IN FACT THIS CORPORATION ONLY LAST WEEK MOVED FROM THEIR HOTEL HEADQUARTERS TO A NEW LOCATION AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THEIR CAMERA SETUP HAS BEEN IN OPERATION. PREVIOUS TO THIS ELECTRICAL FACILITIES AND DARKROOM FACILITIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE AS WAS CALLED FOR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND WHICH THE SMALL BUSINESS REPORT CLAIMED WAS IN OPERATION AT THE TIME OF THEIR INVESTIGATION.

"IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE REPORT, CERTAINLY A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHY SUCH A REPORT WAS SENT TO WASHINGTON BY THE PHILADELPHIA FIELD OFFICE OF SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

"IT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS REPORT THAT TECHNIDATA, INC. WAS AWARDED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE NEVER IN OPERATION AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED WHICH WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS ON THE INVITATION TO BID.'

IN REGARD TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY AS TO CAPACITY AND CREDIT TO TECHNIDATA, INC., BECAUSE THE CORPORATION WAS NOT IN OPERATION AT THAT TIME, AS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INVITATION TO BID, THE SPECIFICATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER BE IN OPERATION AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS AWARDED. IN THAT CONNECTION, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1961, B-146323. THAT CASE THE NEXT LOWEST BIDDER, WHO WAS LOCATED IN WASHINGTON, D.C., PROTESTED THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, WHO WAS LOCATED IN ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA. THE PROTEST WAS BASED ON A PROVISION OF THE INVITATION WHICH PROVIDED THAT ,BECAUSE OF URGENCY OF DELIVERY AND SECURITY MEASURES, THE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES OF SUCCESSFUL BIDDERS SHALL BE LOCATED IN WASHINGTON, D.C.' THE CONTRACT PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT WAS TO BEGIN ON JULY 1, 1961. THE PROTESTING BIDDER CONTENDED THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER HAD NO MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN WASHINGTON, D.C., UNTIL AT LEAST JULY 13, 1961. IN OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1961, WE STATED:

"WE BELIEVE THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL MANUFACTURING FACILITIES PERTAINED TO A MATTER OF RESPONSIBILITY OF BIDDERS RATHER THAN RESPONSIVENESS OF THE BIDDERS AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE LOW BIDDER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE FACILITIES ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO HAVING ITS BID CONSIDERED. UNDER THIS VIEW, THE FACT THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER DID NOT HAVE LOCAL FACILITIES AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF OPENING OF BIDS OR EVEN AT THE TIME OF AWARD DOES NOT FURNISH A VALID LEGAL BASIS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT.'

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW DETERMINATIONS OF THE SBA, AS WE ADVISED YOU IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 12, 1961, WE HAVE SO SUCH AUTHORITY.