B-135160, JUL. 28, 1958
Highlights
INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 2. YOU FURTHER STATE THAT SINCE THE INVITATION WAS AMBIGUOUS. YOUR PROTEST WAS REJECTED BY THE MOBILE AIR MATERIEL AREA WITH THE APPROVAL OF HEADQUARTERS. WE AGREE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AIR FORCE WAS ENTIRELY PROPER IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISIONS ON THE MATTER. THAT THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE AIR FORCE TO THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE REQUIREMENT OF THE INVITATION WAS NOT IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS. THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION THEREIN THAT THE INVITATION WAS SO AMBIGUOUS THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRED ITS CANCELLATION AND READVERTISING OF THE PROCUREMENT. IN OUR VIEW THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION WERE CLEAR. THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION DECIDED WAS WHETHER THE CLEARLY STATED REQUIREMENTS OF THE INVITATION COULD BE WAIVED AS IMMATERIAL.
B-135160, JUL. 28, 1958
TO KECO INDUSTRIES, INC.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 2, 1958, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PROCUREMENT ADVERTISED FOR UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 01-608-58-1 FOR THE REASON THAT OUR DECISION OF MARCH 31, 1958, AS AMPLIFIED BY DECISION OF MAY 15, 1958, EVIDENCES THE FACT THAT THE AIR FORCE MISCONSTRUED THE INVITATION. YOU FURTHER STATE THAT SINCE THE INVITATION WAS AMBIGUOUS, THE PROCUREMENT SHOULD BE READVERTISED IN FAIRNESS TO ALL BIDDERS.
YOUR PROTEST WAS REJECTED BY THE MOBILE AIR MATERIEL AREA WITH THE APPROVAL OF HEADQUARTERS, AIR MATERIAL COMMAND, AS BEING WITHOUT MERIT. WE AGREE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AIR FORCE WAS ENTIRELY PROPER IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISIONS ON THE MATTER. WHILE OUR DECISIONS HELD, IN EFFECT, THAT THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE AIR FORCE TO THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE REQUIREMENT OF THE INVITATION WAS NOT IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS, THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION THEREIN THAT THE INVITATION WAS SO AMBIGUOUS THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRED ITS CANCELLATION AND READVERTISING OF THE PROCUREMENT. IN OUR VIEW THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION WERE CLEAR, AND THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION DECIDED WAS WHETHER THE CLEARLY STATED REQUIREMENTS OF THE INVITATION COULD BE WAIVED AS IMMATERIAL.
WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT AWARD OF THIS PROCUREMENT WAS MADE TO RECONY INDUSTRIES ON JUNE 30, 1958. SINCE NO COMPELLING REASONS EXIST FOR REGARDING THE PROCUREMENT AS MADE AS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE COMPETITIVE BID STATUTE, AS INTERPRETED BY OUR OFFICE, NO FURTHER