B-157997, FEB. 18, 1966
Highlights
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTERS SANDA 642. THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO THE PROTESTANT. THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION. THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PURSUANT TO ASPR 1-705.4 (C). SUCH A REFERRAL WOULD NOT HAVE JEOPARDIZED THE DESIRED PROCUREMENT DATE OF SEPTEMBER 30. THE PRE-AWARD SURVEY OF BERGEN RESEARCH ENGINEERING CORPORATION COULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE SAME TIME TO AVOID ANY POSSIBLE DELAYS IF THE SBA HAD DENIED VICTORY A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY. THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN THE AWARD OF THE AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE CONTRACT MAY HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS.
B-157997, FEB. 18, 1966
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTERS SANDA 642, DATED DECEMBER 20, 1965, AND SANDA 642/GW, DATED JANUARY 20, 1966, FROM THE ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR PURCHASING, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, REPORTING ON THE PROTESTS OF VICTORY ELECTRONICS, INC., IN CONNECTION WITH INVITATIONS FOR BIDS NOS. 383-14-66 AND 383-15-66, RESPECTIVELY.
THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO THE PROTESTANT.
THE FILE INDICATES THAT, WITH RESPECT TO IFB NO. 383-14-66, THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION, IN THAT, ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 3, 1965, WHEN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT VICTORY LACKED FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PURSUANT TO ASPR 1-705.4 (C). IN VIEW OF THE 15 WORKING DAY PROVISION, SUCH A REFERRAL WOULD NOT HAVE JEOPARDIZED THE DESIRED PROCUREMENT DATE OF SEPTEMBER 30. FURTHER, THE PRE-AWARD SURVEY OF BERGEN RESEARCH ENGINEERING CORPORATION COULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE SAME TIME TO AVOID ANY POSSIBLE DELAYS IF THE SBA HAD DENIED VICTORY A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY.
WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEMS CONFRONTING A CONTRACTING OFFICER IN A MATTER OF URGENCY PROCUREMENTS, WE CANNOT FIND SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE OMISSION IN THIS CASE, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, AFTER A NINE-WEEK REVIEW, DURING THE SAME GENERAL PERIOD, GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY TO VICTORY ELECTRONICS, RESULTING IN AN AWARD OF A BUREAU OF SHIPS CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $617,215.50 ON DECEMBER 3, 1965. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN THE AWARD OF THE AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE CONTRACT MAY HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS. BECAUSE OF THIS WE URGE THAT EFFORTS BE MADE TO PREVENT THE RECURRENCE OF THIS OR SIMILAR SITUATIONS.