B-162059, OCT. 2, 1967

B-162059, OCT. 2, 1967

BIDS - SPECIFICATIONS - RESTRICTIVE DECISION CONCERNING PROPRIETY OF AN AWARD TO E.B. ADAMS COMPANY BY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1967. WHERE ONE ITEM IN AN AGGREGATE GROUPING OF ITEMS IN AN INVITATION IS NOT PROPERLY DESCRIBED SO THAT IT CAN BE READILY IDENTIFIED AND INVITATION REQUIRES AWARD IN THE AGGREGATE, AN AWARD FOR THE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SAME AGGREGATE GROUP EVEN THOUGH ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED WOULD NOT BE PROPERLY.

TO MR. ROGER ROBB:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1967, REQUESTING THAT OUR OFFICE RECONSIDER THE DECISION B-162059 OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1967, THAT AN AWARD TO E.B. ADAMS COMPANY UNDER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INVITATION FOR BIDS 73-134-8-0006-EM WOULD NOT BE PROPER.

IN THE DECISION, OUR OFFICE HELD THAT BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIVENESS OF TWO ITEM DESCRIPTIONS REPORTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICE, THERE WAS SOMETHING LESS THAN FULL AND FREE COMPETITION SO THAT ALL BIDS ON THE FIRST AGGREGATE GROUP SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED.

CONTRARY TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICE POSITION, YOU CONTEND THAT THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TWO ITEMS WERE NOT SO RESTRICTIVE THAT BIDDERS COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE ITEMS INVOLVED. TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, YOU FURNISH MANUFACTURERS' BROCHURES ON EACH OF THE ITEMS INVOLVED.

HOWEVER, WHILE ADAMS MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ARTICLES INVOLVED FROM THE DESCRIPTIONS UTILIZED IN THE INVITATION, THE FACT REMAINS THAT AFTER CHECKING WITH OTHER SUPPLY HOUSES THE CONTRACTING OFFICE CONCLUDED THAT THE PRODUCTS INVOLVED COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED. WE NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH THE SECOND ITEM WAS DESCRIBED AS A CHROME HOT PLATE "RANGETTE" CAPITOL 150 OR EQUAL AND THAT YOU ADVISE THAT CAPITOL IS THE MANUFACTURER, THE USE OF THE NAME "CAPITOL" ALONE DOES NOT COMPLETELY IDENTIFY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE REFERENCED ARTICLE. THE MANUFACTURER OF THE ARTICLE ACCORDING TO THE BROCHURE YOU FURNISHED IS THE CAPITOL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., OF WINSTED, CONNECTICUT. IT IS NOT APPARENT THAT A BIDDER COULD ASCERTAIN THE FULL IDENTITY OF THE MANUFACTURER BY REFERENCE TO THE NAME "CAPITOL" ALONE. IS THEREFORE CONCEIVABLE THAT A BIDDER MIGHT BE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION SO AS TO BE IN A POSITION TO BID ON IT OR ON AN EQUAL ARTICLE. IN THAT CONNECTION, THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS ADVISED US THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY COMPETITION ON THE FEW PREVIOUS PURCHASES OF THE ARTICLE AND THAT E. B. ADAMS WAS THE SOLE SUPPLIER OF THE ITEM.

UNDER THE INVITATION, AWARD WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE AGGREGATE. SUCH AN AWARD COULD NOT BE LEGALLY MADE AS LONG AS ANY ONE OF THE ITEMS INCLUDED WITHIN THE AGGREGATE GROUPING HAS BEEN INADEQUATELY DESCRIBED. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE IMPROPER ALSO TO MAKE AN AWARD OF THE BALANCE OF THE ITEMS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SAME AGGREGATE GROUP EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED. ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1967, IS AFFIRMED.