B-155868, APR. 6, 1965

B-155868, APR. 6, 1965

TO APPLIED RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 29, 1964, PROTESTING THE AWARD MADE UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 6359-R-10, ISSUED BY THE AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO.

PROPOSALS WERE REQUESTED FOR THE FURNISHING OF AN ELECTRON MICROBEAM PROBE, WHICH IS STATED TO BE A COMPLEX, EXTREMELY PRECISE, ACCURATE INSTRUMENT, DESIGNED TO ANALYZE THE CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MATERIALS OF A SIZE AT LEAST 400-500 TIMES SMALLER THAN A PIN HEAD, I.E., .00004 OF AN INCH. EXHIBIT A, SECTION II OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL REQUIRED THAT THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED MEET, AMONG OTHERS, THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:

"A1. IT MUST BE POSSIBLE TO FOCUS THE PROBE TO A SPOT AT LEAST AS SMALL AS ONE MICRON IN DIAMETER * * *.

"A4. THE VACUUM SYSTEM SHALL HAVE SUITABLE SAFETY FEATURES TO PROTECT THE APPARATUS IN THE EVENT OF POWER OR WATER FAILURE.

"B. A MAGNIFICATION OF AT LEAST 300X IS REQUIRED.

"C. X AND Y TRANSLATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO UP AND DOWN MOTION.'

IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL YOU SUBMITTED QUOTATIONS ON YOUR ANALYST'S MICROPROBE X-RAY ANALYZER (AMX) WITH THE ACCESSORIES AT $69,206, AND ON YOUR ELECTRON MICROPROBE X-RAY ANALYZER SPECTROMETER (EMX) WITH ACCESSORIES AT $83,470. IN AN ACCOMPANYING LETTER IT WAS TATED:

"THE AMX CATEGORICALLY MEETS ALL OF THE SPECIFICATIONS LISTED BY YOUR TECHNICAL PEOPLE. I HAVE ENCLOSED A TENTATIVE SET OF SPECIFICATIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS INSTRUMENT FOR YOUR PERUSAL. BY AND LARGE YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE INSTRUMENT'S SPECIFICATIONS DO, IN FACT, EXCEED MANY OF THOSE REQUIRED BY YOUR TECHNICAL STAFF.'

QUOTATIONS WERE ALSO RECEIVED FROM TWO OTHER FIRMS, MATERIALS ANALYSIS COMPANY AND PHILIPS ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS. THE LATTER COMPANY PROPOSED TO FURNISH A NORELCO ELECTRON PROBE MICROANALYZER WITH VARIOUS ACCESSORIES.

AN EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS DISCLOSED THAT THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY PHILIPS ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS WAS THE ONLY ONE OF THOSE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT YOUR AMX PROPOSAL FAILED TO MEET THE FOUR REQUIREMENTS QUOTED ABOVE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR CLAIM THAT THE AMX YOU OFFERED MET ALL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. IT IS REPORTED THAT OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE WAS THE FAILURE OF YOUR AMX PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE A SPECIMEN STAGE WITH UP AND DOWN MOTION AS REQUIRED UNDER C. ABOVE, AND THAT THIS ADJUSTMENT IS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL BY THE AIR FORCE TO ACHIEVE UNIFORMITY IN SPECIMEN ANALYSIS. THE AWARD WAS MADE TO PHILIPS ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS AT A TOTAL PRICE OF $79,019.

YOU PROTEST THE AWARD ON THE BASIS THAT YOUR AMX ANALYZER WAS OFFERED AT $69,206 AND THAT IT WAS STATED IN YOUR ACCOMPANYING LETTER THAT SUCH EQUIPMENT "CATEGORICALLY MEETS ALL OF THE SPECIFICATIONS LISTED.'

IT CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS TO DRAW SPECIFICATIONS REFLECTING THEIR NEEDS AND TO DETERMINE FACTUALLY WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED BY BIDDERS COMPLIES WITH SUCH SPECIFICATIONS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED BY YOU DID NOT MEET THE ESSENTIAL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE COULD OBJECT TO THE AWARD MADE.