B-160502, MAY 2, 1967

B-160502, MAY 2, 1967

TO AIRCO WELDING PRODUCTS DIVISION:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTERS OF FEBRUARY 10, 1967, AND APRIL 6, 1967, REQUESTING THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION B-160502 OF FEBRUARY 6, 1967, WHICH DENIED YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 600-925-66, ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON MARCH 24, 1966, TO PROCURE A NUMERICALLY AND OPTICALLY CONTROLLED REDUCED SCALE FLAME CUTTING MACHINE AND APT III POST PROCESSOR FOR THE MARE ISLAND DIVISION, SAN FRANCISCO BAY NAVAL SHIPYARD.

IN PARTICULAR YOU OBJECTED TO EQUIPPING THE FLAME CUTTING MACHINE YOU MARKET WITH THE SPECIFIED GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MARK CENTURY NUMERICAL CONTROL, AND SO YOU REFUSED TO BID UNDER WHAT YOU CONSIDERED RESTRICTIVE SPECIFICATIONS.

BECAUSE THE NAVY WAS OF THE OPINION THAT A MACHINE EQUIPPED WITH OTHER THAN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC MARK CENTURY CONTROL WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED COMPATIBILITY AND INTERCHANGEABILITY OF TAPES WITH THE MARK CENTURY CONTROLLED FLAME CUTTING MACHINES PRESENTLY INSTALLED ELSEWHERE, AND, THEREFORE, OTHER CONTROL SYSTEMS WOULD NOT FILL THE MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE, WE DENIED YOUR PROTEST, HOLDING THAT: "THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS REFLECTING THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT IS PRIMARILY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.'

YOU NOW POINT OUT THAT YOUR EARLIER LETTER OF DECEMBER 2, 1966, QUESTIONED THE NAVY'S VIEW THAT ONLY ANOTHER GENERAL ELECTRIC MARK CENTURY CONTROL CAN BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTROL DEVICES PRESENTLY INSTALLED ON OTHER FLAME CUTTING MACHINES, FOR YOU STATE:

"* * * THERE ARE ADVANCED SYSTEMS AVAILABLE THAT WILL ACCEPT A TAPE PREPARED FOR THE G.E. MARK CENTURY DIRECTOR SUCH AS THE NAVY USED AT PUGET SOUND, WITHOUT NEED FOR REWORKING THE TAPES. THESE SYSTEMS HAVE CAPABILITIES THAT FAR EXCEED THOSE OF G.E. MARK CENTURY SYSTEM. FOR EXAMPLE, BY USE OF A PRE-PROCESSOR, THE SAME SYSTEM COULD ACCEPT ASC II TAPE CODE.'

IN SUPPORT OF THIS, YOU ENCLOSE A COPY OF NC SCENE, NUMERICAL CONTROL SOCIETY, SEQUENCE NO. 14, DATED MAY 1966, WHICH REPORTS:

"IN THE EARLY DAYS OF N/C, A PROLIFERATION OF TAPE CODES AND TAPE WIDTHS EXISTED; IT SEEMED THAT EACH MANUFACTURER OF NUMERICAL EQUIPMENT DEVISED HIS OWN. IN NOVEMBER 1955, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (EIA), A COMMITTEE REPRESENTING MACHINE TOOL AND CONTROL BUILDERS, AS WELL AS USERS, WAS FORMED. FROM THIS GROUP CAME A SERIES OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AMONG THEM THE NOW WIDELY-USED RS-244 TAPE CODE FOR N/C EQUIPMENT.

"THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY FACED A SIMILAR PROBLEM ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF INCREASED INTERCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN COMPUTERS, THEIR PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT, AND DATA TRANSMISSION TERMINALS. THE X3 COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION DEVELOPED A NEW CODE WHICH COULD, PRESUMABLY, BE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTABLE. THIS CODE, NOW KNOWN AS ASCII, HAS BEEN BROADLY CONDONED BOTH IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD.

"THERE ARE SEVERAL MAJOR MANUFACTURERS NOW PREPARED TO FURNISH TAPE PREPARATION EQUIPMENT WHICH WILL OUTPUT ASCII. THE GIANTS OF THE COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTER INDUSTRY ARE MAKING THE TRANSITION NOW, AND WILL SOON HAVE THEIR NEW EQUIPMENTS COMPLYING WITH THE NEW STANDARD.

"* * * EVENTUALLY, IT MAY COST A HIGH PREMIUM TO PURCHASE TAPE PREPARATION EQUIPMENT TO PERFORATE THE RS-244 CODE, AND CUSTOMERS, THEREFORE, WILL START SPECIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH ASCII. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO OFFER DUAL INPUT SYSTEMS RIGHT NOW - ONES WHICH, WITH THE FLIP OF A SWITCH, CAN ACCEPT EXISTING RS-244 TAPES OR, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, ASCII CODED MEDIA. ALREADY, A CONTROL BUILDER HAS ADVERTISED THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT ASCII CODED TAPES. COMPETITION, IF IT DEVELOPS, WILL FORCE OTHERS TO DO LIKEWISE. END"

ALL OF THIS DOES NOT ALTER THE UNCHALLENGED STATEMENT THAT BY SPECIFYING THE SAME NUMERICAL CONTROL DEVICE USED IN OTHER INSTALLATIONS, THE NAVY HAS, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, GUARANTEED THE ABILITY TO INTERCHANGE TAPE INVENTORY WITHOUT THE NECESSITY FOR REWORK. THE DESIRABILITY OF THIS GOAL IS AT ONCE APPARENT.

THE RESPONSIBLE NAVY PERSONNEL INVOLVED ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE UNIFORMITY IS TO SPECIFY THE GENERAL ELECTRIC MARK CENTURY CONTROL ON THIS NEW FLAME CUTTING MACHINE. SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPORT OF JANUARY 6, 1967, WHICH SAYS IN PART:

"THE NAVY ENGINEERS DO NOT AGREE WITH MR. HOOPER'S (YOUR REPRESENTATIVE) CONTENTION. THEY FEEL THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED COMPATIBILITY IS TO EQUIP THE FLAME CUTTER WITH A NUMERICAL CONTROL IDENTICAL TO THE ONE FOR WHICH THE COMPUTER ASSIST PROGRAM AND EXISTING TAPES WERE DEVELOPED.'

THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE IS A COMPLEX QUESTION, REQUIRING A THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE OF SHIPBUILDING PRACTICES, FLAME CUTTING MACHINERY, AND CONTROL DEVICES FOR SUCH MACHINERY. THIS OFFICE DOES NOT EMPLOY PEOPLE QUALIFIED TO PASS UPON SUCH SPECIALIZED FIELDS OF ACTIVITIES. INSTEAD, FOR NECESSARY TECHNICAL DETERMINATIONS OF THIS NATURE, WE MUST ORDINARILY RELY ON THE JUDGMENT AND EXPERTISE OF THE ENGINEERING PERSONNEL OF THE PROCURING AGENCY. ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD BEFORE US, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE NAVY'S DECISION TO RESTRICT THE CONTROL DEVICE TO THE SAME TYPE PRESENTLY INSTALLED ELSEWHERE IS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS OR IN BAD FAITH; CONSEQUENTLY OUR OFFICE WILL NOT QUESTION THIS DECISION. SEE 38 COMP. GEN. 7, 75; 36 ID. 251, 252; AND B- 155394, MARCH 31, 1965.

WE FURTHER NOTE THAT EVEN IF OUR OFFICE WERE EQUIPPED TO JUDGE SUCH TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS OFFICE TO DRAFT SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONTRACTUAL NEEDS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 17 COMP. GEN. 554, 557.

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, WE FIND NO OBJECTION TO THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS INVITATION OR THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT PURSUANT TO THIS INVITATION. NEVERTHELESS, IT APPEARS YOUR OPINION FAVORING THE PURCHASE OF UNIVERSAL CONTROL EQUIPMENT WHICH PERMITS THE USE OF THE NEWER ASC II CODE ALONG WITH THE PRESENT INVENTORY OF RS-244 CONTROL TAPES MAY HAVE MERIT. WE ARE THEREFORE FORWARDING A COPY OF YOUR LETTER AND ENCLOSURES TO THE NAVY FOR ITS CONSIDERATION IN DRAFTING FUTURE SPECIFICATIONS.