B-149183, JUL. 31, 1962

B-149183, JUL. 31, 1962

TO THE ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY:

YOUR TELEGRAM OF JUNE 15, 1962, PROTESTS THE AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. N600/19/58735 TO JOHN R. HOLLINGSWORTH COMPANY, ON THE GROUNDS THAT YOU SUBMITTED THE LOW RESPONSIVE BID.

INVITATION FOR BIDS 600-701-62 REQUESTED BIDS ON A TOTAL OF 87 MOTOR GENERATORS WHICH CONFORMED TO SPECIFICATION XFWGS-167. AMENDMENT NO. 5 ADDED THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH TO THE SPECIFICATION:

"3.7.4 MOTOR GENERATOR--- THE MOTOR GENERATOR SHALL BE A TWO BEARING, SINGLE SHAFT REVOLVING FIELD TYPE UTILIZING COLLECTOR SLIP RINGS AND AND BRUSHES. THE FRAME AND END BRACKETS (OR END BELLS) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF FORMED AND WELDED STEEL PLATE. CAST IRON, CAST NODULAR GRAPHITIC IRON, OR CAST STEEL SHALL NOT BE USED. THE MOTOR GENERATOR SHALL BE OF SPLASH PROOF DESIGN, WITH ALL OPENINGS GUARDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 1.2.7.4.5. OF CC-M-641. VENTILATION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A FAN MOUNTED ON ONE END OF ROTOR SHAFT AND EXTERNAL TO THE ENCLOSING FRAMES OR END BRACKETS AS PER PARAGRAPH 1.2.7.4.9. OF CC-M-641. VENTILATING AIR SHALL BE DRAWN IN THE BOTTOM SIDE OF THE GENERATOR END COVER AND EXHAUSTED THROUGH THE BOTTOM SIDE OF MOTOR END COVER. EASILY REMOVABLE STEEL COVER ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE PROVIDED ON EACH END OF THE MOTOR GENERATOR.'

BIDS WERE OPENED ON MAY 28, 1962, AND YOU WERE THE LOW BIDDER. HOWEVER, AFTER EVALUATING THE DATA YOU HAD SUBMITTED WITH YOUR BID THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY DETERMINED THAT YOUR BID WAS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE, AMONG OTHER REASONS, THE GENERATOR YOU OFFERED DID NOT MEET THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 3.7.4 OF SPECIFICATION XFWGS-167, QUOTED ABOVE, AND WAS DEFICIENT IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS:

TABLE

(YOUR MACHINE)

MIL-M-4803 (MACHINE REQUIRED) "REQUIREMENT

MIL-M-4820 XFWGS-167 OVERHAUL PERIODS 5000 HRS. 10000 HRS. OPERATING TEMPERATURES MINUS 29 DEGREES MINUS 40 DEGREES

C TO PLUS OR C TO PLUS OR

MINUS 49 MINUS 50

DEGREES C DEGREES C TRANSIENT LOAD CHANGE 35 PERCENT 25 PERCENT TRANSIENT RECOVERY 2 PERCENT WITHIN 1 PERCENT WITHIN

0.2 SECONDS 0.15 SEC. CONTINUOUS OPERATION 75 HOURS 125 HOURS OVERLOAD TEST 3 MIN. AT OVERLOAD 3 MIN. AT OVERLOAD

12 MIN. AT NO 12 MIN. AT FULL

LOAD LOAD VOLTAGE ADJUSTMENT 0.5 VOLTS 0.1 VOLTS VOLTAGE MODULATION 1 PERCENT 1/4 PERCENT VOLTAGE PHASE BALANCE 3 PERCENT 1 PERCENT METERS MIL-M -6 NOT MIL-M-10304

RUGGEDIZED RUGGEDIZED METERS REED TYPE DIAL POINTER TYPE FREQUENCY STABILITY PLUS OR MINUS PLUS OR MINUS

1/2 CYCLE 1/2 CYCLE

IN 3 SECONDS IN 1 SECOND"

YOU ALLEGE THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 3.7.4 "IN TERMS OF TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS OTHER THAN TO IMPOSE UNNECESSARY COST AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ON ALL BIDDERS OTHER THAN THAT ONE WHOSE DESIGN CONFORMS EXACTLY TO THIS CONFIGURATION.' YOU ALSO ALLEGE THAT THE MACHINE YOU PROPOSE TO OFFER DOES MEET THE TEST REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION XFWGS-167.

THE RECORD REASONABLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR PRODUCT DIFFERED IN A DEMONSTRATIVE MANNER FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY STATES THAT THESE DIFFERENCES CAUSED YOUR MACHINE TO OPERATE IN A MANNER WHICH WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO MEET THE MAXIMUM NEEDS OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY, AND THE QUESTION AS TO THE MATERIALITY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR MACHINE AND THE ONE CALLED FOR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, ARE NOT ORDINARILY CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS OFFICE. IN OUR DECISION B-139830, DATED AUGUST 19, 1959, WE MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:

"THIS OFFICE HAS NEITHER AN ENGINEERING STAFF NOR A TESTING LABORATORY TO EVALUATE THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF SPECIFICATIONS. MOREOVER, IN DISPUTES OF FACT BETWEEN A PROTESTANT AND A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, WE USUALLY ARE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AS CORRECT. WHETHER A PARTICULAR BID IS RESPONSIVE TO THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT A MATTER, ORDINARILY, FOR OUR DETERMINATION. * *

IN THIS REGARD, WE HELD IN OUR DECISION B-143389, DATED AUGUST 26, 1960, AS FOLLOWS:

"THE QUESTION AS TO THE ACTION, IF ANY, WHICH OUR OFFICE SHOULD TAKE IN CASES INVOLVING THE EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATIONS, ETC., HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A NUMBER OF DECISIONS BY OUR OFFICE. YOUR PROTEST IS BASED UPON SUCH AN EVALUATION. OF NECESSITY, OUR OFFICE HAS ESTABLISHED A RULE GOVERNING SUCH SITUATIONS. IN A DECISION DATED JANUARY 8, 1938, TO THE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PUBLISHED AT 17 COMP. GEN. 554, 557, WE SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING RULE WHICH WE CONSIDER TO BE CONTROLLING IN THE INSTANT MATTER:

" "IT IS IN THE PROVINCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS TO DRAFT PROPER SPECIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO SUBMIT FOR FAIR COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROPOSED CONTRACTS TO SUPPLY GOVERNMENTAL NEEDS, AND TO DETERMINE FACTUALLY WHETHER ARTICLES OFFERED MEET THOSE SPECIFICATIONS. * * *" "

IN VIEW OF THE FACTS REPORTED IN THIS CASE, AND FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN THE ABOVE-CITED DECISIONS, WE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN OBJECTING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN.