B-143153, OCT. 18, 1960
Highlights
IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT AWARD OF THE REMAINING ITEMS YET TO BE PROCURED SHOULD BE MADE TO THE PAR SALES COMPANY SINCE IT WAS THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER UNDER THE INVITATION FOR BIDS. WE HELD IN OUR DECISION THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE AWARD IMPROPER BUT ALSO THAT THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WAS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE SINCE IT FAILED TO PROVIDE A BASIS OF EQUITABLE BID EVALUATION RESPECTING TRANSPORTATION COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT.
B-143153, OCT. 18, 1960
TO EVERETT HALE SMITH, ESQUIRE:
WE REFER TO A COPY OF A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 1960, TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, ROSSFORD ORDNANCE DEPOT, PROTESTING AGAINST THE CONTEMPLATED READVERTISING OF A PORTION OF THE PROCUREMENT COVERED BY CONTRACT NO. DA-33-079-ORD-2770 DATED JUNE 24, 1960, WITH THE LEE ENGINEERING COMPANY. AS YOU POINT OUT, OUR DECISION TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1960, DIRECTED THE CANCELLATION OF THE UNCOMPLETED PORTION OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.
IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT AWARD OF THE REMAINING ITEMS YET TO BE PROCURED SHOULD BE MADE TO THE PAR SALES COMPANY SINCE IT WAS THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER UNDER THE INVITATION FOR BIDS.
CONTRARY TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATTER, WE HELD IN OUR DECISION THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE AWARD IMPROPER BUT ALSO THAT THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WAS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE SINCE IT FAILED TO PROVIDE A BASIS OF EQUITABLE BID EVALUATION RESPECTING TRANSPORTATION COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT. THAT BEING THE CASE, AN AWARD LEGALLY MAY NOT BE MADE UNDER SUCH DEFECTIVE INVITATION AND, IF A NEED STILL EXISTS FOR THE REMAINING ITEMS ORIGINALLY CALLED FOR BY THE INVITATION AND THE CONTRACT, A NEW INVITATION FOR BIDS CONFORMING TO THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF COMPETITIVE ADVERTISING MUST BE ISSUED.
WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER SO FAR AS THEY CONCERN THE INTERESTS OF PAR SALES IN THE PROCUREMENT, OUR OFFICE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE UNDER THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES OTHER THAN TO HOLD AS STATED ABOVE AND IN OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1960.