Skip to main content

B-158011, JANUARY 28, 1966

B-158011 Jan 28, 1966
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

INCORPORATED: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 8. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE SUBJECT INVITATION WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 19. 219 WAS THEREUPON MADE TO THE SECOND LOW BIDDER. AUTO-TEST FURTHER REQUESTS THE REASONS THE AWARD WAS NOT MADE TO IT SINCE ITS BID WAS LOW. THIS RATING ESTABLISHES THE PRIORITY RATING THAT WILL BE GIVEN THE MATERIALS REQUIRED TO FABRICATE THE EQUIPMENT CALLED FOR UNDER THE CONTRACT. AUTO-TEST WAS MAKING NO GREATER CONDITION THAN IT WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UNDER THE RESULTING CONTRACT. AUTO-TEST'S BID WAS NOT A QUALIFIED BID IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING. THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND NONRESPONSIVE. "5. IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST NOT TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT WITH SUN ELECTRIC. "6.WE ARE REQUESTING THE PROCURING ACTIVITY TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ASSURE THAT THE ABOVE DEFICIENCY DOES NOT REOCCUR ON FUTURE PROCUREMENTS OF THIS TYPE.'.

View Decision

B-158011, JANUARY 28, 1966

TO AUTO-TEST, INCORPORATED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 8, 1965, PROTESTING AGAINST AWARD OF CONTRACT TO SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 41-608-66-163, ISSUED BY SAN ANTONIO AIR MATERIEL AREA, KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE SUBJECT INVITATION WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 19, 1965, AND SOLICITED BIDS FOR THE FURNISHING OF HIGH INTENSITY IGNITION TIMING LIGHTS. SCHEDULE SECTION 8, PART VII OF THE INVITATION REQUIRED REJECTION OF A BID IN THE EVENT A BIDDER PROPOSED A DELIVERY COMMENCING AFTER 75 DAYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF A CONTRACT AT THE RATE OF 33 1/3 PERCENT PER MONTH UNTIL COMPLETION. YOUR FIRM OFFERED TO MEET THIS DELIVERY REQUIREMENT PROVIDED IT RECEIVED A PRIORITY RATING TO RECEIVE THE WIRE NECESSARY TO FABRICATE THIS EQUIPMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS STATEMENT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REJECTED YOUR BID AS NONRESPONSIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS OF THE INVITATION, AND AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,219 WAS THEREUPON MADE TO THE SECOND LOW BIDDER, SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION, ON OCTOBER 29, 1965.

HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, UPON REEVALUATION OF THE MATTER, NOW ADVISES AS FOLLOWS:

"4. AUTO-TEST FURTHER REQUESTS THE REASONS THE AWARD WAS NOT MADE TO IT SINCE ITS BID WAS LOW. AS STATED ABOVE, AUTO-TEST DID NOT RECEIVE THE AWARD AS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THE BID NONRESPONSIVE. NOTE SCHEDULE SECTION II, PART VII OF THE INVITATION, ENTITLED "DO RATING," PROVIDES FOR THE ASSIGNING OF A DO RATING TO ANY RESULTING CONTRACT. THIS RATING ESTABLISHES THE PRIORITY RATING THAT WILL BE GIVEN THE MATERIALS REQUIRED TO FABRICATE THE EQUIPMENT CALLED FOR UNDER THE CONTRACT. THIS PROVISION ALSO IDENTIFIES THE REGULATION THAT SETS FORTH THE PROCEDURE THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED TO OBTAIN SUCH EQUIPMENT. THIS PROVISION COVERED THE APPARENT CONTINGENCY AUTO-TEST PLACED ON ITS DELIVERY. AUTO-TEST WAS MAKING NO GREATER CONDITION THAN IT WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UNDER THE RESULTING CONTRACT. AUTO-TEST'S BID WAS NOT A QUALIFIED BID IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND NONRESPONSIVE.

"5. AS OF 22 DECEMBER 1965 THE SUN ELECTRIC HAD COMPLETELY FABRICATED 50 UNITS, FABRICATED 80 PERCENT OF AN ADDITIONAL 50 UNITS AND 50 PERCENT OF ALL THE REMAINING ITEMS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS SUBSTANTIALLY PERFORMED THE CONTRACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST NOT TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT WITH SUN ELECTRIC.

"6.WE ARE REQUESTING THE PROCURING ACTIVITY TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ASSURE THAT THE ABOVE DEFICIENCY DOES NOT REOCCUR ON FUTURE PROCUREMENTS OF THIS TYPE.'

WE CONCUR IN THE ABOVE-QUOTED VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN IN REJECTING YOUR BID WAS IMPROPER. WE WOULD THEREFORE, UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, REQUIRE CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO SUN ELECTRIC. HOWEVER, WE MUST AGREE WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT SINCE SUN ELECTRIC HAS SUBSTANTIALLY AND SATISFACTORILY PERFORMED ITS CONTRACT, IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE SUCH ACTION.

YOU WILL OBSERVE, HOWEVER, THAT ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS ARE BEING TAKEN TO PRECLUDE A RECURRENCE ..END :

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs